Prattville Cotton Mills Co. v. McKinney

• Decision Date: 16 May 1912
• Citation: 178 Ala. 554,59 So. 498
• Parties: PRATTVILLE COTTON MILLS CO. v. MCKINNEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

59 So. 498

178 Ala. 554

PRATTVILLE COTTON MILLS CO. v. MCKINNEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 16, 1912

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.

Action by Henry McKinney, pro ami, against the Prattville Cotton Mills Company for damages for personal injuries suffered while in defendant's employ. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following charges were refused to the defendant: A. "Although the jury may believe from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence by failing to instruct the plaintiff in detail as to the danger of cleaning off the shafting or machinery under his charge, and in his care while the same was in motion and the shaft was revolving at great speed, yet if the defendant was only instructed to clean the machinery and shafting without being instructed to clean the same while it was in motion, or being operated, and he attempted to clean same, or wipe off the shafting with loose waste or quantity of thread constituting this, while the same was in motion, and the shaft revolving at great speed, and by so doing got his hand caught, and thereby sustained the injury complained of, when he could have waited until the machinery stopped, or until after the mill was shut down before attempting to clean off the shafting or machinery in discharging the duties of his employment, then the jury must find for the defendant." B. "The court charges the jury that there is no evidence in this case that the plaintiff was instructed to wipe off the shaft or machinery under his charge while such machinery was running or being operated and shaft revolving at great speed." I. "The evidence fails to show that either the defendant or any employé of the defendant, who had authority to do so instructed the plaintiff to clean off the revolving shaft on which the set screw was fastened while revolving or in motion." J. The same as I, with the addition: "And it also fails to show that the plaintiff did not know that it was dangerous to attempt to clean said shaft while revolving rapidly." K. "There is no evidence in this case that it was any part of the duty of the plaintiff to attempt to clean the shaft on which the set screw was fastened while the same was in motion." E. "The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence the plaintiff had open to him, in discharging the duty or rendering the service which he owed to the defendant, the privilege of waiting until the mill was shut down, or machinery was stopped, and it would have been safe and free of danger in cleaning off said machinery or shafting when stopped, and that the plaintiff instead of waiting until the machinery was stopped or mill shut down, attempted to wipe off said machinery or shaft with loose waste while the machinery or shaft was revolving at a great speed, and by so doing got his hand or arm caught, and thereby sustained injuries complained of, the verdict of the jury should be for the defendant." G. "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the evidence failed to show any defects in the condition, ways, works machinery, or plant of the defendant." L. "There is no evidence in this case that it was any part of the duty of the plaintiff to attempt to clean the shaft on which the set screw was fastened while the same was in motion, and if from the evidence the jury believe that the plaintiff attempted to clean the shaft on which the set screw was fastened with waste while the same was in motion and rapidly revolving, and thereby sustained injury complained of, you should find for the defendant." M. "If you believe from the evidence that there was a defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant of the defendant, you cannot find for the plaintiff, unless you further believe from the evidence that such defect proximately contributed to the injury complained of." O. "I charge you that if you believe from the evidence that there were two ways or methods known to the plaintiff for performing his duties as an employé of the defendant, in cleaning the shaft on which the set screw was, one known to be more dangerous than the other, and that plaintiff chose the more dangerous way of cleaning same, then you should find for the defendant." P. "I charge you that if there were two ways in which the plaintiff might discharge his work for the defendant, from the evidence in this case, and that he elected the more dangerous way, then he cannot recover a verdict against the defendant in this case." T. "If the jury are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that a person of ordinary intelligence would have known that it was dangerous to have attempted to wipe off the piece of shafting on which the set screw was fastened, and the plaintiff did attempt to wipe off or clean said piece of shafting while revolving at high rate of speed, he was guilty of contributory negligence, and cannot recover in this case if the injury was inflicted as a proximate cause or result of attempting to clean off or wipe off said shaft while so revolving."

R. L. Harmon and J. M. Foster, both of Montgomery, and Eugene Ballard, of Prattville, for appellant.

Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellee.

MAYFIELD J.

This action is brought by a servant against the master to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the master, or of its servants or agents, for which the law holds the master liable.

The complaint originally contained 13 counts, but it was tried upon counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Counts 1 and 2 were under the first subdivision of the Employer's Liability Act (Code 1907, § 3910), as for defects in the ways, works, machinery, etc. Counts 4 and 6 were under the second subdivision, as for the negligence of a servant intrusted with superintendence, while in the exercise of such superintendence. Counts 7 and 8 were based upon the common-law duty of the master to use reasonable diligence and care to furnish the servant a safe place in which to work, and safe appliances with which to work, and to exercise care to maintain the same in a safe condition and in repair. Counts 9 and 10 were for failure to warn the servant, who was alleged to be inexperienced, of the dangers attending the performance of the duties assigned to plaintiff.

To these various counts the defendant demurred, but the record fails to show any judgment or order or ruling on the demurrer. Therefore we cannot pass upon the sufficiency of the counts, and all must be treated as if not demurred to.

To these counts the defendant pleaded the general issue, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk. There were many of these pleas. A demurrer to all the special pleas was interposed, but the judgment entry shows no ruling thereon. Moreover, the record proper is in bad condition.

We are therefore required to guess or to presume the issues upon which the case was actually tried, and all intendments must be indulged in favor of the rulings of the trial court on the demurrers to the complaint and to the special pleas.

The plaintiff is a minor, between 15 and 16 years of age. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the operation of a cotton mill in this state. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant, in its business, and at the time of the injury was engaged in the particular business of stranner, and worked at a stranning machine, which is a part of the machine for making cotton rope. At the time of his injury he had been working at this particular machine only a few days, less than a week, though he had been employed in the mill for several years, at other and less dangerous work. The stranning machine at which plaintiff worked had connected with it a line of steel shafting, about 14 feet long, on which revolved pulleys with belts for running the machinery. This section of shafting had an iron band or collar around it, through which passed a set screw, for holding the pulleys in position. This screw was about three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with a square head about one-half inch in size, and projected above the collar about three-eighths of an inch. This machinery was required to be cleaned by the employés who operated it, on Saturday. It was stopped at 2:15 p. m., on Saturday, and the mill was closed at 3 p. m., on that day. This was arranged and intended to allow 45 minutes in which to clean up the machinery, sweep the building, etc., before the operatives should leave for the week.

This stranning machine which the plaintiff operated had this shaft above referred to, which revolved very rapidly, making 400 or 500 revolutions per minute. Plaintiff was attempting to clean the machine while it was in operation, by wiping with waste threads or yarn which was wrapped around his hands; and this thread or waste caught upon the head of the set screw, and thus drew his hand around the shafting, tearing off a part of his hand and arm.

The plaintiff claims that he did not know of the presence of this set screw and its projecting head, which caught the yarn and thus drew his hand around the pulley and inflicted the injury complained of.

Under the present state of this record, it appears that this case may have been tried upon a hundred or more issues, and except as the evidence may show it, it is impossible to know which were abandoned, and which were the most relied upon for recovery, or for defense. Our investigation of the record is therefore rendered more difficult and uncertain. It is stated by counsel--and the record seems to bear out the statement--that the main issues relied on for a recovery by the plaintiff were a defect in the machinery in the kind of set screw used, and defendant's failure to warn plaintiff of the...