Richards v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1906
• Citation: 146 Ala. 254,41 So. 288
• Parties: RICHARDS v. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 288

146 Ala. 254

RICHARDS v. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; E. B. Almon, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Joe Richards, by next friend, against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

G. O Chenault, for appellant.

Weatherly & Stokely, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This was an action by the appellant for damages on account of injuries received by complainant while in the employ of defendant. According to the plaintiff's testimony he was 19 years of age at the time of the accident, had been in the employment of defendant near the place of the accident for 30 days, but had been put at the work of tramming cars on the day of the accident, about 9 a. m., and the accident occurred about 1:30 p. m. His duties were to drive the mule, which was hitched to the car from the pit, after the ore had been placed in the car, up to the top of the grade or hill ("knuckle," they called it), and there to detach the mule, and the car was there run into the switch, where the dinkey (small engine) would take the car into the washer. He explains that he had noticed others at this work, and knew how they managed the cars, etc., but states in another part of his testimony that he had no experience in the tram car business. Plaintiff had started up the grade once, when the mule either "backed" or "stalled," or stopped because the load was too heavy, and the car rolled back into the pit. Plaintiff was riding on the car at the time, but the boss told him to get off and walk up the hill which he did, and about the time the car reached the knuckle or within 30 feet of the knuckle, plaintiff, for the purpose of loosening the singletree, so as to release the mule, tried to get up on the bumper of the car, and as he did so his foot slipped from the bumper and went to the ground, where it became fastened between the guard rail and the outer rail of the track, and before he could extract it the car ran over his leg and caused the injury. No one else attempts to give an explanation of the accident, so that we must take this statement as the correct one that the car, with more than two tons of ore, ran over his leg, about five inches above the knee, and yet he still has his leg, and it is only a little stiff and somewhat shorter than the other. But whether it ran over his leg, or against it, matters not. The car was in motion when he fell, being drawn by the mule, and continued in motion until the accident occurred.

The first, fifth, and sixth counts are under subdivision 1 of section 1749 of the Code of 1896, alleging that the defendant had failed to remedy, etc.; the first specifying the car was defective, the fifth the tram track, and the sixth the mule. There is not a particle of testimony tending to show any defect in either. There were some questions seeking to show that the mule was "balky," but no affirmative answer. It matters not whether the mule balked or stalled, or simply signified his preference to have the load lightened. He simply allowed the car to roll back into the pit, and no damage was done there. When the young man got off, the mule drew the car up the hill, and his equanimity does not seem to have been disturbed when the young man tried to board the car again. The character of the mule seems to be unimpeached, and the fact that it refused to pull before certainly could not furnish any reason for charging it with the responsibility of this...