Roberts v. United Fuel Gas Co.

Decision Date27 May 1919
Citation84 W.Va. 368
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesRoberts, who sues &c. v. United Fuel Gas Co.

1. Pleading Demurrer to Amended Declaration Effect New Cause of Action.

A demurrer to an amended declaration, which makes no reference to the original, challenges only the sufficiency of the pleading and does not raise the question whether the amendment introduces a new cause of action, which can be raised only by objection of the filing or motion to strike. (p. 370).

2. Trial Improper Remarks of Counsel Instruction to Disregard Remarks.

Improper remarks by counsel during the trial and in the presence of the jury are not cause for reversal if the jury were properly instructed to disregard them, and the court is unable to see that substantial prejudice resulted. (p. 371).

3. Commerce Master and Servant Pipe Line Workmen's Compensation Act Work Subject to Provisions of Act Liability Def enses.

Excavation of a ditch by an interstate pipe line company, preparatory to laying a gas pipe, parallel to one of its existing main lines and to be connected therewith, for the purpose of increasing its carrying capacity, is not part of its commercial business, but is work clearly separable and distinguishable therefrom, and in the performance thereof such company is subject, unconditionally, to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, if in default, is liable for injury to its servants employed in such work, caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, and is denied the right of the common law defenses of fellow servant, assumption of risk and contributory negligence. (p. 373).

4. Appeal and Error Harmless Error Submission of Issues.

An error in submitting a pure question of law to the jury is rendered harmless by a correct decision thereof by them. (p. 373).

5. Damages Personal Injury Excessive Damages.

Twenty-five hundred dollars damages assessed by the jury for the loss of an eye is not excessive. (p. 376).

Error to Circuit Court, Roane County.

Action by Troy Roberts, by next friend, against the United Fuel Gas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

R. G. Altizer, C. C. Douthitt and Pendleton, Mathews & Bell, for plaintiff in error.

Thos. P. Ryan and Chas. E. Hogg, for defendant in error.

Williams, Judge:

Plaintiff, a minor nineteen years of age suing by next friend for damages on account of a personal injury, caused by the alleged negligence of a fellow servant, recovered judgment against the defendant by whom he was employed as a common laborer, and it is prosecuting this writ of error.

Defendant is a corporation engaged in producing natural gas and transporting it through pipe lines to its customers both within and without the state and is, therefore, engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce. It does not maintain separate pipe lines for the two kinds of commerce, but transports the gas for both domestic and foreign consumption through the same lines to certain points where so much as is intended for use within the state is carried from the main line, by means of lateral lines, to the places of consumption. Its commercial business is, therefore, so mingled as not to be clearly distinguishable, the domestic from the foreign. It, employed plaintiff about the digging of a ditch about two and a half or three miles in length, preparatory to laying a pipe line from its compressor station at Clarence, to connect with the main line leading from that point to Ravenswood on the Ohio River. This new line was parallel to the main line already existing and was intended to increase defendant's carrying capacity between the same points. The main line supplied gas to the towns of Ripley and Ra, venswood in West Virginia, and what was not consumed by these towns was turned over at Ravenswood to the Ohio Fuel Supply Company for consumption in Ohio, and was measured in the line as it flowed through the station. Defendant ceased to pay its quota or assessment into the Workmen's Compensation Fund in April, 1915, and was in default at the time of plaintiff's injury which occurred on the 6th of the following August.

Plaintiff's employment required him to gather the tools used by the workmen in the ditch when they became dull, carry them to the blacksmith shop for repair and redistribute them along the ditch after they were sharpened. On the «day of his injury he took some tools to the shop and was watching the blacksmith and his helper while they were sharpening a drill. They were about to cut off the sharp corners of a drill with a cold chisel and sledge hammer, the drill and chisel being held in place on the anvil by the blacksmith and his helper striking the chisel with the hammer, and the blacksmith told plaintiff to get back out of the way, that a piece of steel might fly off and strike him in the eye. Plaintiff says he immediately started to get out of the way and, before he had time to do so, the helper struck the chisel an unusually hard blow causing a small bit of hot steel to fly off from the drill and strike him in the eye, lascerating the ball so severely that it became necessary for him to go to the Lopita1 and have his eye removed, which he did.

The first error defendant assigns is the overruling of its de;murrer to plaintiff's first and second amended declarations. Its counsel insist that the original declaration avers plaintiff's injury was received while he was working on a pipe which was used in both interstate and intrastate commerce, and because the two were inseparable, stated no cause of action, defendant in such case not being liable for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, citing Barnett v. Coal & Coke By. Co., 81 W. Va. 251, and Suttle v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 82 "W. Va. 729, 97 S. E. 429, whereas, in his two amended declarations he averred his injury was received while he was engaged in work for the defendant, which was wholly intrastate, thus, as counsel insist, departing from the original cause of action, citing Findley v. Coal & Coke Ry. Co., 76 W. Va. 747. Each of the amended declarations, which are not materially different in substance, states a good cause of action, and the demurrers thereto were properly overruled. Objection on the ground that the amendment constituted a departure from the original cause of action, or because it introduced a new and different cause of action, was not made, and the question does not arise on demurrer. 31 Cyc. 463. Where plaintiff files an amended declaration making no reference to the original, the original is considered as abandoned. Bartley v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 81 W. Va. 795; SJiafer v. Security Trust Co., 82 W. Va. 618, 97 S. E. 290; and Roderick v. Railway Co., 7 W. Va. 54. Hence, the demurrer goes only to the sufficiency of the averments in the amended declaration. Railway Co. v. Sutherland, 105 Va. 545. The question should be raised by objecting to the filing of the amended declaration or by motion to exclude it. Authorities supra. But no objection was here made. The court had overruled the demurrer to the original declaration and permitted plaintiff, on his own motion, to amend, as he had a right to do, and the cause was remanded to rules for that, purpose. The amended declaration incorporates no part of the original nor makes any reference to it, hence a demurrer could not raise the question. However, there is no departure, the amendment preserves the identity of the original cause of action. It shows plaintiff was injured while engaged in the same service, in the same manner and on the same occasion as alleged in the original declaration, the only difference being that the amended declaration states with greater particularity the character of the work defendant was then doing and the nature of plaintiff 's employment therein; and in both the original and amended declarations the cause of action averred, arises under the laws of the State of West Virginia. Hence, the case is unlike Findley v. Coal & Coke Ry. Co., supra, where the plaintiff brought his action under the state law, and, after the evidence introduced at the trial had so far developed the facts as to render it apparent that his right of action was determinable according to the Federal Employer's Liability Act, sought to amend his declaration in order to make it conform to the requirements of that act, and the amendment stated a different ground or basis of action and was, therefore, an averment of an entirely new cause of action. But here there is no such departure, and the amendment was proper.

The next complaint is, that the court improperly overruled defendant's motion to discharge the jury from further considering the case, on account of certain improper remarks made in their presence and hearing by one of counsel for plaintiff, after they had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Smith v. United Fuel Gas Co
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 25 de abril de 1922
    ...incomplete and had not been used in any kind of traffic. The same observation may be truthfully made, respecting Roberts v. United Fuel Gas Co., 84 W. Va. 368, 99 S. E. 549, in which the Workmen's Compensation Act was successfully invoked. The employee was hurt while excavating a ditch for ......
  • Smith v. United Fuel Gas Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 25 de abril de 1922
    ... ... run by the employee were clearly intrastate. In the other, ... the bridge on which the injured employee worked was ... incomplete and had not been used in any kind of traffic. The ... same observation may be truthfully made, respecting ... Roberts v. United [91 W.Va. 56] Fuel Gas Co., 84 ... W.Va. 368, 99 S.E. 549, in which the Workmen's ... Compensation Act was successfully invoked. The employee was ... hurt while excavating a ditch for a pipe line, intended for ... use in interstate transportation but not yet actually so ... used. In ... ...
  • Miller v. United Fuel Gas Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 1 de março de 1921
    ... ... transportation system, and no attempt is made to separate ... them. We have hitherto had occasion to refer to the combined ... interstate and intrastate character of this portion of ... defendant's business, and therefore it is unnecessary to ... enter into further discussion of it. Roberts v. United ... Fuel Gas Co., 84 W.Va. 368, 99 S.E. 549; United Fuel ... Gas Co. v. Hallanan, 105 S.E. 506, 516, 517 ...          Plaintiff ... and W. B. Hughes had ascertained the approximate location of ... the leak and were engaged in digging along the side of the ... line, which ... ...
  • J.B. Colt Co. v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in and for Millard County
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 12 de julho de 1928
    ... ... S.W. 1177; McMechen v. Baltimore & O. R ... Co., 90 W.Va. 21, 110 S.E. 474; Roberts v ... United Fuel Gas Co., 84 W.Va. 368, 99 S.E. 549; ... Bartley v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., ... ...
  • 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