Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Reid
| Decision Date | 20 January 1914 |
| Citation | 184 Ala. 647,64 So. 334 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. REID. |
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Action by J.M. Reid against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, for damages for injuries received while in its employment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A statement of the complaint, and special pleas numbered 18 to 22, inclusive, will be found in the report of the former appeal of this case (177 Ala. ----, 58 So. 301). Pleas 25 and 27 will also be found in that report. Following are the other pleas discussed in the opinion:
(23) "Defendant, for further plea in answer to each count of complaint, separately and severally says that plaintiff ought not to recover against defendant, for defendant avers plaintiff knew of the alleged defect, and with an appreciation of the danger arising therefrom, and knowing that if he placed his hand or arm on the disk or side rod on said engine he would probably be injured thereby, and appreciating the danger of so doing, nevertheless plaintiff placed his hand which was injured on the disk or side rods of said engine, when he could have done the work he was then engaged in without placing his said hand thereon, and was injured as alleged in his complaint, and in so doing plaintiff assumed the risk of injury which resulted to him."
(24) "To all the counts separately and severally, defendant says that plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his said alleged injuries in this That he negligently caused or allowed his hand to be on or dangerously near the disk or side rod of said engine, knowing that it was dangerous to cause or allow his said hand to be in said position, and knowing that the throttle valve of said engine was defective, and that steam was passing from the boilers into the cylinders of said engine, and that said steam would probably cause said engine to start up, and that the passage of steam from the boilers to the cylinders of said engine could be diminished or retarded by opening the cylinder cocks or valves, then and there connected with said engine, nevertheless plaintiff negligently failed to open said cylinder cocks or valves before causing or allowing his said hand to be at said place, or in said position."
(26) "To each of the counts separately and severally defendant says plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his injuries in this: That he negligently caused or allowed his hand to be on or dangerously near to the disk or side rod of said engine, or between said disk and said side rods, knowing that it was dangerous to cause or allow his hand to be in said position and knowing that the throttle valve of said engine was effected, and that steam was passing from the boilers into the cylinders of said engines, and that said steam would probably cause said engine to start up, and that the amount or volume of said steam in said cylinders could be diminished or retarded and the starting up of said engine delayed by opening the cylinder cocks or valves, then and there connected with said engine, nevertheless plaintiff negligently failed to open said cylinder cocks or valves before causing or allowing his hand to be at said place on in said position."
(28) Same as 26, except that it was alleged that, when said steam reached or acquired a certain pressure in said cylinder, it would probably cause said engine to start, and that said certain pressure could be retarded or postponed by opening the cylinder cocks or valves then and there connected with said engine, nevertheless plaintiff negligently failed to open said cylinder cocks or valves before causing or allowing his said hand to be at said place or in said position.
Demurrers were overruled to pleas 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 17, and sustained as to pleas 23, 24, 25, 26, and 28. The fifth ground of demurrer to pleas 23 to 29, inclusive, is it is not alleged that there was a safer way known to plaintiff to perform the work in carrying out the orders and instructions of his superiors, and that he was negligent in selecting the dangerous way. The sixth ground of demurrer to plea 28 is as follows: "It is averred that pressure in the cylinders could have retarded, but it is not alleged the retarding of the pressure would have cured or remedied the defect alleged in each count of the complaint or saved injury to plaintiff. "Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the throttle valve controlling the steam was defective and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aaron v. State
...v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 103 So. 46; Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co., 210 Ala. 582, 98 So. 730; Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Reid, 184 Ala. 647, 64 So. 334; Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. Williamson Iron Co. v. McQueen, as Adm'r, 144 Ala. ......
-
Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co.
... ... common, knowledge. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v ... Reid, 184 Ala. 647, 64 So. 334; 22 C.J. p. 656,§§ ... ...
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Reid
...damages for injury while engaged in its employment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 184 Ala. 647, 64 So. 334. complaint alleges that plaintiff was employed by defendant in the operation of an engine for hoisting ores from its mine; that said ......
-
Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.
... ... Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co., ... 210 Ala. 582, 98 So. 730; Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v ... Reid, 184 Ala. 647, 64 So. 334; Harbison-Walker ... efractories Co. v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. 547; ... Williamson Iron Co. v. McQueen, as Adm'r, 144 ... Ala. 265, 40 So. 306; Choate v ... ...