Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Redd

• Decision Date: 19 December 1912
• Citation: 6 Ala.App. 404,60 So. 468
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. REDD.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

60 So. 468

6 Ala.App. 404

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

Court of Appeals of Alabama

December 19, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. C. Crow, Judge.

Action by G. W. Redd against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and Charles E. Rice all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harsh Beddow & Fitts, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PELHAM, J.

The suit brought by the appellee in the court below as administrator is to recover damages from the appellant for negligently causing the death of the plaintiff's intestate while an employé of the defendant company. The complaint contains several counts, but only the first count was submitted to the jury. That count is framed under subdivision 2 of the Employer's Liability Act (Code, § 3910), counting on the injury as having been occasioned by reason of the negligence of one Meadows, a person in the employment of the defendant having superintendence intrusted to him.

The only assignment of error rests upon the refusal of the trial court to give the general charge for the defendant on the first count of the complaint.

The evidence without conflict shows that the plaintiff's intestate received the injuries which resulted in his death while engaged in the performance of the duties of his employment, in obeying an order of his immediate superior Meadows, a person having intrusted to him the superintendence of the plaintiff's intestate and being charged with the control of the work at which he was employed. The plaintiff's intestate was in the employ of the defendant company as a helper for Meadows, who was the person intrusted with superintendence in the performance of the woodworking part of certain repair work being done upon the defendant's coal washer. That part of the plant of the defendant company where the injury occurred was undergoing repairs and a new conveyor being installed on a platform or elevated landing about 30 or 40 feet above the ground. An iron shafting ran along parallel with and on top of the floor of the platform about six or eight inches above the floor of the platform, and this shafting was connected by open, uncovered cogwheels with the elevator, and all of these pieces of machinery constituted part of the machinery used in the operation of the defendant's coal washer. The plaintiff's intestate received the injuries from which he died by being caught in the revolving cogwheels.

The work being done on the coal washer at the time the plaintiff's intestate received his injury was not a service performed in connection with the regular operation of the plant, but in connection with repair work, and the machinery operating the coal washer was kept in motion, and the regular work of the plant was carried on during the progress of this repair work. A piece of sheet iron about 18 inches wide by 8 to 10 feet long had been placed diagonally across the shafting connected with the machinery, and but a few feet from the unprotected cogwheels operating the elevator. This piece of sheet iron had been placed in this position to enable employés engaged in the repair work to go upon it in attending to their duties in and about making the repairs, and had been used for this purpose during the two days which the repair work had been in progress before the injuries occurred.

The floor of the platform had quantities of grease and oil upon it, and rubbish and material that was being used in the work "was scattered all around the floor space." The ends of the sheet iron over the shafting were resting for a support on this rubbish and loose timbers placed on the elevated platform floor. The shafting under the sheet iron plate was revolving and a slight vibratory motion imparted to the plate. The entire structure, including the floor or elevated platform where the employés were engaged at labor on the repairs, vibrated to some extent when the machinery of the coal washer was in motion. All of these physical conditions were existing at the time the order was given that is complained of as having been negligently given and were shown to have been known, or by ordinary diligence able to have been known, to the superintendent who gave the order to the plaintiff's intestate.

The order given to the plaintiff's intestate as a helper by his superior, intrusted with superintendence, was to get a certain kind of bolt to be used in connection with the repair work in charge of Meadows, and the bolts were kept in one place, so that to comply with this order and get the bolt it was necessary for the plaintiff's intestate to go downstairs from the place where he was standing on the piece of sheet iron, at a distance of about four feet from the revolving cogwheels. When he started after the bolt in obedience to the orders of his superior, intrusted with his superintendence, he slipped or fell into the cogs and received the injuries complained of, which resulted in his death.

Although two or more eyewitnesses, close to the scene of the accident were looking directly at the plaintiff's intestate when he received his injuries, it is not positively or definitely shown by the evidence of these two witnesses, or by any other testimony set out in the bill of exceptions, just how or what caused the injured party to get entangled in the cogwheels. At least two of the witnesses examined on the trial testified that they were looking directly at the plaintiff's intestate during the time he was endeavoring to perform this service in obedience to the order of Meadows, but state that they could not exactly designate just what caused him to get caught in the...