Southern Oil Co. v. Church.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1903
• Citation: 74 S.W. 797
• Parties: SOUTHERN OIL CO. v. CHURCH.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

74 S.W. 797

SOUTHERN OIL CO. v.CHURCH.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; L. B. Cobb, Judge.

Action by E. H. Church, Jr., against the Southern Oil Company.From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.Reversed.

Frost, Neblett & Blanding, for appellant.Simkins & Mays, for appellee.

FISHER, C. J.

This is an action for damages by appellee against the Southern Oil Company, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor for $10,000.The appellee, in his petition, states that he was injured on the 19th day of September, 1900, and that prior to that time the Southern Oil Company was engaged in the development and production of oil in and around the city of Corsicana by drilling and causing to be drilled wells for such purpose, and erecting derricks for the purpose of being used by contractors and drillers, whom the oil company employed for the purpose of drilling such wells; that the oil company entered into a contract with Hammil Bros. to drill for it a well on land controlled by the oil company, and that they furnished to Hammil Bros., to be used as one of the means employed in drilling the well, a derrick; that the derrick was to be used by Hammil Bros., its agents and employés, and that the plaintiff, at the time that he was injured, was in the immediate employ of Hammil Bros., working for them in drilling the well; that the defendant, the oil company, did furnish to Hammil Bros. the derrick to be used by them in drilling the well, and that at the time that the same was delivered to Hammil Bros. it was in a defective condition; that the defendantOil Company was guilty of negligence in constructing the crown of the derrick, in that the pieces of plank used in making the crown were of secondhand material, and were insufficient in size and strength to sustain the weight and pressure which would necessarily be placed thereon in drilling said well; that said crown was not built on a level, as it should have been, and was insufficiently and insecurely nailed to the top of the derrick; that as a result of this negligence, the crown piece gave way, which caused the crown block to fall from the top of the derrick, from which an iron bolt struck the plaintiff upon the head, causing the injuries he sustained.The defendant, among other defenses, pleaded that the injury was caused by the negligence of Hammil Bros., who were at the time independent contractors, and that the plaintiff at that time was in the immediate employment and under the control of Hammil Bros.

We find the following facts: That the plaintiff was injured at the time and place and in the manner substantially as alleged in his petition; that the top of the derrick, where the crown piece which was alleged to be defective was placed, was about 60 feet from the ground; that the crown piece gave way, which caused the crown block, which was resting thereon, to fall, and an iron bolt therefrom struck the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was at the time in the employ of Hammil Bros., and that the Southern Oil Company had no control over him whatever; that he was not guilty of any negligence at the time that he received his injuries, and was then in the performance of his duties as an employé and servant of Hammil Bros.; that the derrick had been furnished and delivered to Hammil Bros. by the Southern Oil Company in the defective condition, as alleged by the plaintiff, and that Hammil Bros. had not, from the time it was received, exercised the proper care to inspect the same; that the Southern Oil Company had no control or supervision over Hammil Bros. or their men at the time that the accident occurred.The oil company, however, by its contract with Hammil Bros., reserved the right to exercise some control over Hammil Bros. when oil sand should be reached by the drill.This...