Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 26 October 1915
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 907
• Citation: 70 So. 285,14 Ala.App. 337
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. EDWARDS.

70 So. 285

14 Ala.App. 337

SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. EDWARDS.

6 Div. 907

Court of Appeals of Alabama

October 26, 1915

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C.W. Ferguson, Judge.

Action by Henry Edwards against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, for damages suffered while in its mine. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Tillman Bradley & Morrow and T.A. McFarland, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

David J. Davis and Hugo L. Black, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The case was tried upon count 4 of the complaint, which claimed damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while working as the employé of another in defendant's coal mine with the consent and at the invitation of the defendant it being alleged in the count that said injuries were proximately caused by reason of the negligence of the defendant in failing to keep said mine in a reasonably safe condition. The count was not, we think, subject to the demurrers interposed to it. Republic Steel & Iron Co. v Luster (Sup.) 68 So. 358; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Knowles, 129 Ala. 410, 30 So. 584; Connors-Weyan Steel Co. v. Kilgore (Sup.) 66 So. 609; Republic Steel & Iron Co. v. Fuller, 6 Ala.App. 448, 60 So. 475.

The defendant was, however, in our opinion, entitled to the general affirmative charge requested by it. It appears from the evidence without dispute that, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was in defendant's mine as an employé of, and engaged in work for, Fortner & Short, a company or copartnership, who were under contract with the defendant to mine the coal--that is, to cut and shoot it down and load it on cars--at a stipulated sum per ton, employing and paying for their own labor (Woodward Iron Co. v Brown, 167 Ala. 323, 152 So. 829), and that at such time the plaintiff was working for them, said Fortner & Short, as a "scrapper" (a term not defined, either in the evidence or the dictionaries), under the direction of one Jones, another employé of said Fortner & Short, and who operated the machine for cutting down the coal; that with or near him, said Jones, the plaintiff was working at the time of the accident; that the coal in the room in which plaintiff and said Jones were so at work at the time extended across the side of the room in two seams--an upper and lower seam--divided by a seam of rock, known as, or called, the "middleman"; that said Jones, at the point or place in the room where plaintiff was injured, and just before plaintiff was injured, did, during the progress of the work of mining the coal in said room, and as necessary thereto, cut down, with the machine mentioned, the lower seam of coal referred to, which being the support for the seam of rock (the said "middleman") just above it, caused the seam of rock at that point to crack and become loose, and, it not having been propped up with timbers (as it should have been, and as was necessary to prevent it from falling when the coal was cut and removed from beneath it), fell, striking the plaintiff and inflicting the injuries complained of. If it was not defendant's duty to the plaintiff to prop up this rock, then, clearly, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, as is conceded. There existed between plaintiff and defendant, as was alleged in the complaint, and which the proof, as seen, showed without dispute, merely the relationship of licensor and licensee, and not that of master and servant; and we are not of the opinion that the duty of the defendant to a licensee, as plaintiff was, to keep its coal mine in a reasonably safe condition extends to conditions which, being safe when the work of mining the coal was commenced by plaintiff's employers, Fortner & Short, who were under a contract with defendant to mine the coal, had become unsafe by reason of, and as a result of, changes made in such condition by the servants of said Fortner & Short and rendered necessary in the carrying on of the work of mining the coal. Certainly, if Fortner & Short, the plaintiff's employers, were independent contractors to mine the coal, as the evidence seems to show, the defendant would not be liable. Woodward Iron Co. v. Brown, 167 Ala. 323, 52 So. 829; Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Townes, 148 Ala. 146, 41 So. 988; Harris v. McNamara et al., 97 Ala. 181, 12 So. 103; Hubbard v. Coffin & Leak (Sup.) 67 So. 697; Warrior Pratt Co. v. Shereda, 183 Ala. 118, 62 So. 721; 16 Am. & Eng.Ency.Law (2 Ed.) 186; Connors-Weyman Steel Co. v. Kilgore (Sup.) 66 So. 609, and authorities last cited; Myer v. Hobbs, 57 Ala. 175, 29 Am.Rep. 719; Baker v. A., B. & A. Ry. Co., 163 Ala. 101, 49 So. 751. And, even if Fortner & Short were not independent contractors, yet the relationship between them and defendant, by reason of their contract with defendant to mine the coal, as developed by the evidence, was of such a character as to relieve the defendant of the duty, which it...