Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Triplett

• Citation: 177 Ala. 258,58 So. 108
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. TRIPLETT.
• Decision Date: 16 January 1912
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

58 So. 108

177 Ala. 258

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

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 16, 1912

On Application for Rehearing, February 22, 1912.

On Application for Rehearing.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. O. Lane, Judge.

Action by J. C. Triplett against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. Heard on question certified by the Court of Appeals. Question answered in the negative.

For subsequent decision in Court of Appeals, see 58 So. 109.

Count 4 is as follows:

"Plaintiff claims of defendant $5,000 as damages, for this: That heretofore, to wit, on the 7th day of January, 1910, the defendant was engaged in the following business in Jefferson county, Alabama, viz., the operation of a coal mine, and the plaintiff was in the service of the defendant in the following capacity, to wit, as a track man; and the plaintiff avers that it was the duty of the defendant to furnish him with a reasonably safe place in which to work and perform his duties; and he avers that among other duties with which he was charged in such service or employment he had to go or work around the track of defendant on which tram cars were run to and from its tipple; and the plaintiff averred that the defendant negligently failed to furnish him with a reasonably safe place in which to work, and that while in the discharge of his said duties, as aforesaid, owing to the defendant's negligent failure and breach of duty, as aforesaid, he was injured. [Here follows catalogue of injuries.] Which said wounds and injuries were the proximate consequence and caused by reason of the negligent failure of the defendant as aforesaid."

Tillman Bradley & Morrow and J. S. Stone, for appellant.

Gaston & Pettus, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This case is referred to this court by the Court of Appeals to decide whether or not count 4 of the complaint is subject to the demurrer interposed to the same. As shown by the record and reference, said count alleges that "it was the duty of the defendant to furnish him with a reasonably safe place in which to work and perform his duties." Under the decisions of this court, the expression quoted does not correctly state the law, as "the duty to afford the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work is not unqualified." Merriweather v. Sayre Mining & Manufacturing Co., 161 Ala. 442, 451, 49 So. 916, 920; Huyck v. McNerney, 163 Ala. 244, 50 So. 926.

The case of Smith v. Watkins & Donelson, 55 So. 611 draws the distinction between the count in this case and one which does not contain any such statement as to the duty of the master. ...