Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton

Decision Date02 July 1915
Docket Number695
Citation194 Ala. 126,69 So. 604
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesREPUBLIC IRON & STEEL CO. v. QUINTON.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C.B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Julia Quinton, as administratrix, against the Republic Iron & Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff's intestate was killed while serving defendant company in the line of his employment, by contact with a current of electricity, which was proximately caused by the negligence of defendant's superintendent, Lang, while exercising his superintendence in that said Lang negligently caused the intestate to come in contact with said current of electricity.

A "trip" wreck in the mine was being repaired by several workmen under the supervision of Lang, who was bank boss and had general control of everything inside of the mine. The men were resetting the timbers, one of which was about to catch on the electric wire which supplied the mine with light and power, and which was then sagging from the roof along which it ran; and the intestate, who was present reached up and pushed the wire aside. It held him fast, and he was shocked to death before the current could be switched off.

Intestate was assistant boss driver, and was working immediately under Boss Driver Vandiver. In repairing the wreck, the work was usually done by the timber and battrice man. On this occasion intestate's superior, Lively, was standing within 15 or 20 feet of the workmen, and ordered intestate and one Nicholas to remain there and assist with the job, and afterwards to report to him. The testimony is in direct conflict as to whether Lang knew of intestate's presence before he moved to push the wire, and whether he ordered intestate individually, or generally, along with the gang, to assist in the work. Nicholas assisted actively in the work, and according to one or more witnesses intestate was assisting with the timbers before he pushed the wire.

The following charges were refused to defendant:

(9) The court charges the jury that if you are reasonably satisfied from the testimony that Mr. Lang did not order or direct plaintiff's intestate to assist in doing the work which was being done, but plaintiff's intestate of his own accord put up his hand to shove the wire out of the way, and received his injuries while doing so, then plaintiff will not be entitled to recover.
(12) If you are reasonably satisfied from the testimony that plaintiff's intestate was guilty of the slightest negligence in putting his hand upon the electric wire, and this proximately caused his death, then plaintiff cannot recover.
(A) If you believe the evidence, you cannot find that Vandiver had any authority to issue orders to plaintiff's intestate to assist in doing the work of resetting the timbers; and if the intestate had no authority in any other way, or instructions from any other superior employé to engage in such work, then plaintiff cannot recover.
(B) If you believe the evidence, Vandiver had no authority to bind defendant by the issuance of instructions, if any were so issued, to intestate to assist in resetting the timber.

Percy, Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W.A. Denson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The chief question in controversy in this case is whether or not the intestate was killed while engaged in a service to the defendant which he was employed or authorized to perform. The undisputed evidence shows that his regular employment was in the capacity of assistant boss driver, and it follows, of course, that if he gratuitously, or without proper authorization, undertook to aid in the work of repairing the wreck, and in so doing handled the electric wire which shocked and killed him, he is not entitled to recover on this complaint.

The intestate was working immediately under the boss driver, Vandiver, and subject to his orders. But all of the men employed inside of the mine, including Vandiver and the intestate, were subordinate to the bank boss, Lang, and subject to his orders and control. Vandiver, who knew of this wreck, and who was present while Lang was superintending the work of repair, instructed the intestate to remain there and assist in the work.

Some of the testimony indicates that he was there for several minutes, and that he had hold of some of the timbers before he handled the wire. It was open to the jury to reasonably infer either that Lang heard Vandiver order the intestate to remain and assist, or else that he knew he was present and engaged in assisting, and hence that Lang tacitly assented thereto; and they might have so found in spite of Lang's denial of such knowledge.

It is obvious that, if Lang tacitly accepted the service of the intestate in this behalf, though it was foreign to his regular employment, such service was authorized in a legal sense, and the intestate was thereby brought within the protection of those rules of law which shelter servants against the negligence of their master.

Charge 9 is at least misleading, in that the jury might have inferred from its language that the intestate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Stover v. Hill
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 26 d4 Outubro d4 1922
    ... ... review. Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, supra; Republic Iron & ... Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 133, 69 So. 604; ... ...
  • Julian v. Woolbert
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 16 d4 Janeiro d4 1919
    ... ... Lewis, 34 Ala. 638; Avery v. Ware, 58 Ala. 475; ... Tecumseh Iron Co. v. Camp, 93 Ala. 572, 9 So. 343; ... Attalla Min. & Mfg. Co. v ... So. 671; W.U.T. Co. v. Benson, 159 Ala. 254, 48 So ... 712; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala ... 126, 69 So. 604. Demurrer was ... ...
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Blankenship
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 12 d4 Abril d4 1917
    ... ... Lee v. Georgia Cotton Co., 72 So ... 162; R.I. & S. Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 69 So ... Let the ... judgment of the circuit ... ...
  • North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Sciandra, 6 Div. 49
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 4 d4 Outubro d4 1951
    ...here. In many instances no authorities are cited. Cairnes v. Hillman Drug Co., 214 Ala. 545, 108 So. 362; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 69 So. 604; Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, 196 Ala. 599, 72 So. 158; Hodge v. Rambow, 155 Ala. 175, 45 So. Defendant requested the genera......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT