Seymour v. Holman, 4 Div. 770.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 770. |
| Citation | 229 Ala. 634,158 So. 525 |
| Parties | SEYMOUR v. HOLMAN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1935.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries by W. B. Seymour against M Holman, individually and as sole surviving partner of the firm of Pridgen & Holman. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
P. B Traweek, of Elba, for appellant.
W. L Lee, of Dothan, for appellee.
The action is for personal injuries.
The question for review is the giving of the affirmative charge for defendant.
The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that plaintiff (appellant), an experienced carpenter and builder, was employed by defendant on a daily wage basis, as foreman, to do certain repair work on the office portion of the sales stable of defendant; that the contemplated repairs, among other things, called for the jacking up of one of the walls and replacement of a decayed sill.
His helpers, or fellow servants, consisted of plaintiff's son, Ethan Seymour, and George Campbell, a young man, 25 years of age, not experienced as a carpenter, but properly termed a common or unskilled laborer.
Under plaintiff's supervision, the wall had been jacked up, and he, with his helpers, were proceeding to install a support to hold the wall in position until the sill should be replaced. To this end a hole was cut through the wall, through which a timber 8" by 8" and 7 feet long was to be placed, and supported on each side of the wall by an upright piece 8" by 8" and 3 to 3 1/2 feet in length, resting on other timbers as footings. Plaintiff and son were working on one side the wall and Campbell on the other. Father and son passed one end of the timber through the hole in the wall, and the three got that end placed on the upright piece on Campbell's side. At this stage the son proceeded to raise the other end of the timber while the father set the upright piece in place, and at that moment the end on Campbell's side fell, jerked or knocked the timber out of the son's hands, and that end fell, catching the father's leg or ankle and inflicting the injury complained of.
While certain counts of the complaint on which the case was tried allege negligence on the part of George Campbell, it is not questioned that he was a fellow servant for whose negligence the employer was not responsible in this action. The gravamen of these counts is want of reasonable care in the selection of competent fellow servants. It is charged that Campbell was inexperienced, unskillful, and inefficient, a fact known to the employer, and the injury was proximately caused by such inefficiency.
Plaintiff's evidence does not disclose whether, by the lifting of the other end of the timber, it was jerked out of Campbell's hand or in what way it came to fall. Campbell, as a witness gives a wholly different version of the entire affair; claims plaintiff dropped an old piece of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everett Hardware Co. v. Shaw
... ... [178 ... Miss. 477] ... 4 ... MASTER AND SERVANT ... In ... action by ... Power Co., 179 Ky. 577, 200 S.W. 964; Seymour v ... Holman, 158 So. 525; Yellow Pine Co. v. Clark, ... ...
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Green, 6 Div. 872
...an inadequate force to do the work in hand, and that such failure is, in whole or in part, the cause of appellee's injury. Seymour v. Holman, 229 Ala. 634, 158 So. 525; Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 251 Ala. 27, 36 So.2d 102. But negligence on the part of the employer is not presu......
-
Hardaway Contracting Co. v. Rivers
... ... Seymour ... v. Holman, 158 So. 525; 18 R. C. L. 703, par. 187; 17 ... sufficient number of men to move the mat ... 4. No ... error was committed in permitting the appellee's ... ...
-
Cabaniss v. Wilson
...McDaniel, 56 Ala.App. 322, 321 So.2d 664, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 416, 321 So.2d 670 (1975) (judgment on jury verdict); Seymour v. Holman, 229 Ala. 634, 158 So. 525 (1934) (judgment for defendant on jury verdict). However, in the present case, defendants failed to meet their burden of provin......