Ragland v. Native Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1918
• Docket Number: 20048
• Citation: Ragland v. Native Lumber Co., 117 Miss. 602, 78 So. 542 (Miss. 1918)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: RAGLAND v. NATIVE LUMBER CO

78 So. 542

117 Miss. 602

RAGLAND v. NATIVE LUMBER CO

No. 20048

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 6, 1918

Division B

APPEAL from the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. J. H NEVILLE, Judge.

Suit by Virginia Ragland against the Native Lumber Company.From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Mize &amp Mize and J. C. Ross, for appellant.

White & Ford, for appellee.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

Appellant, the widow of Joe Ragland, deceased, sued appellee, a corporation owning and operating sawmills and logging railroads, for the alleged wrongful and negligent killing of her said husband.The defendant company in having its logs felled and hauled from the woods used a large number of wagons and employees.It appears that Joe Ragland, with other employees, was engaged in loading logs on wagons.The method employed in loading logs was to place a wagon alongside the logs that were bunched for the purpose of being loaded, and in putting a log on the wagon to attach one end of a chain to the front bolster of the wagon, and the other end of the chain to the rear bolster of the wagon, running the middle of the chain under the log.A pair of mules would be attached to the chain and used in pulling the log over skidders onto the wagon.It was the duty of the deceased to stand on top of the wagon at one end and stop the log with a cant hook as it would come up on the skidders over the wagon; and when the log had been pulled over sufficiently, the mule lines would be cut from the chain and the log placed in position on the wagon.On the occasion complained of the wagon was placed on a hillside with its rear wheels by a long tall pine tree, some sixty feet high, that had a dead top.In putting a log on the wagon Ragland failed to stop the log in its proper place, and the log ran clear off the wagon, and one end of it struck the tree with such force and violence as to jar aloose a dead limb from the top of the tree, and this dead top fell, struck Ragland upon his head, and inflicted injuries from which he shortly thereafter died.It is charged in the declaration that there were three crews of laborers, one called the bunch crew, whose duty it was to bunch the logs in the woods; another, loading crew, whose duty it was to load the logs upon the wagon; and the third crew hitched their teams to the loaded wagons and hauled the logs to the logging railroad.It appears that Ragland belonged to the loading crew, and that his duty was to assist in loading the logs.The declaration charges that it was the duty of the defendant company to inspect the grounds where the logs were bunched and to see that the deceased had a safe place to work, and that this duty was breached, resulting in Joe Ragland's death.Upon issue joined, the case was tried by the court and jury, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.From the judgment based on this verdict appellant prosecutes an appeal, assigning as error the giving to appellee of the following:

"The court instructs the jury that, unless the plaintiff has shown negligence in this cause and that such negligence was the proximate cause of Joe Ragland's injury, you must find for the defendant."

It is contended that the defendant relied upon the alleged contributory negligence of Joe Ragland, and that under our comparative negligence statuteplaintiff had a right to recover if the defendant was guilty of any negligence whatever that contributed in whole or in part to the injury complained of.It is contended that this instruction placed...