Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Long
Citation | 53 So. 910,169 Ala. 337 |
Parties | SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. LONG. |
Decision Date | 24 November 1910 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles W. Ferguson, Judge.
Action by George Long, by his next friend, against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Tillman Bradley & Morrow and L. C. Leadbeater, for appellant.
Bondurant & Smith, for appellee.
The plaintiff, being a convict, was in involuntary servitude. It was enforced. He had no right or power to refuse to enter upon the service, or to quit it, at any time, until his sentence expired. "Wherefore, if the defendant, or any officer or servant of the defendant, acting within the scope of his employment either willfully or negligently did the intestate an injury the defendant was responsible therefor." Buckalew v Tenn. Coal & Iron Co., 112 Ala. 146, 20 So. 606. In the case at bar, the complaint avers that Cook, while acting within the scope of the authority of his employment, as a servant of the defendant, negligently ordered the plaintiff to hitch up a wild or untrained or dangerous mule to a coal car, and that, while the plaintiff was "so engaged," the said mule started off or attempted to break away, thereby causing the car to run over the plaintiff's foot, etc. The complaint avers that the servant Cook negligently ordered the plaintiff to hitch up the mule, and this would be broad enough to impute a knowledge to Cook that the mule was wild or dangerous, otherwise the order to hitch him to the car could not have been negligently given in this respect; but the complaint also charges that Cook knew that the mule was wild, untrained, or dangerous, when he gave the order, or in the exercise of due care ought to have known that the mule was wild, dangerous, or untrained. If Cook was acting within the scope of his authority in giving the order, the plaintiff, being a convict, had to comply therewith, and it was as much the duty of the master to furnish safe stock, when used in connection with its business, as it would be to furnish safe tools, and if Cook ordered plaintiff to use an unsafe mule, knowing that it was unsafe or without exercising ordinary care to ascertain that it was safe, he would be guilty of negligence for which the defendant would be liable to this plaintiff, who does not sue under the statute, as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. McCord
... ... v. Elliott, 183 Ala. 298, ... 62 So. 808; Woodward Iron Co. v. Marbut, 183 Ala ... 310, 62 So. 804; Langhorne v. Simington, 188 ... Tallant, 165 Ala. 521, 51 So. 835; Wilson v. Gulf ... States Steel Co., 194 Ala. 311, 69 So. 921; Dwight ... Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala ... 234, 238, ... 241, 34 So. 20; S.-S.S. & I. Co. v. Long, 169 Ala ... 337, 340, 53 So. 910, Ann.Cas.1912B, 564; Repub. I. & S ... ...
-
Cole v. United States
...fact, Alabama has expressly held that the doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply to a convict laborer. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Long, 169 Ala. 337(1), 53 So. 910. It is said that the doctrine of contributory negligence is based on the maxim Volenti non fit injuria. Can it ......
-
Walters v. Thompson
... ... reason for this is well set out ... Sloss-Sheffield ... Steel & Iron Company v. Long, 53 So. 910 ... It was ... ...
-
Turner v. Richmond & R. R. Ry. Co
...driver, and it was held liable to an employe, 17 years old, who was kicked by a mule that he had driven before. In Sloss-Sheffield Steel, etc., Co. v. Long, 169 Ala. 337, 53 South. 910, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 564, it was held that an employ was as much bound to furnish safe mules to operate its c......