Stamford Oil Mill Co. v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 24 April 1909
• Citation: 119 S.W. 871
• Parties: STAMFORD OIL MILL CO. v. BARNES.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

119 S.W. 871

STAMFORD OIL MILL CO. v. BARNES.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1909.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Jones County; Cullen C. Higgins, Judge.

Action by W. T. Barnes against the Stamford Oil Mill Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. T. Andrews, for appellant. H. G McConnell and G. L. Davenport, for appellee.

DUNKLIN, J.

From a judgment in favor of W. T. Barnes against the Stamford Oil Mill Company for damages resulting to plaintiff from injuries sustained by his minor son, English Barnes, in defendant's cotton seed house, defendant has appealed.

On the occasion of the accident Tom Barnes, 16 years of age, in company with his brother, English Barnes, 12 years of age, went to defendant's plant to purchase cotton seed hulls. In the hullhouse, and running lengthwise therewith, was what was termed a "conveyor," consisting of machinery boxed on the sides, but open on top, which served to carry the hulls to other portions of the building. There was a bridge above this conveyor, and at right angles therewith, with a trapdoor in the floor of the bridge through which carts loaded with hulls and driven on the bridge were emptied into the conveyor. The boys went upon this bridge at its east end and passed to the west end to fill their sacks with hulls, which they there found, and, while the elder boy was engaged in filling the sacks, English Barnes, who had been watching the movement of the conveyor, in some manner fell, and in falling his foot was caught in the conveyor and so badly mangled that it had to be amputated. Plaintiff's contention was that there was a hole in the floor of the bridge, and that through inadvertence the boy stepped into it. Defendant's contention was that there was no such hole in the bridge, and that necessarily the boy must have climbed over one of the railings on the sides of the bridge, and in so doing got his foot into the conveyor. The verdict of the jury was in favor of plaintiff's contention, and is supported by evidence although there was evidence to support defendant's contention to the contrary. Defendant's premises were inclosed by a wire fence, and evidence was introduced to the effect that signs of "No admittance" or "Keep out" were placed over the entrance gates in the fence and also over all the doors of the hullhouse. The evidence showed that at the north end of the building was the door where customers desiring hulls were expected to go, and that the door at which the boys entered was near the south end of the building and on the east side; the building being about 180 feet in length. The elder boy had been to the plant to purchase hulls on three occasions prior to the occasion of the accident. On the trip last preceding the accident English Barnes accompanied him. Tom Barnes, the elder boy, testified: That on former trips he applied at the appellant's office to purchase hulls, and Mr. Deyo, in charge of the office, would direct him to go to the hullhouse and get the hulls without further directions as to any particular portion of the house; that each time he went to the same place as on the occasion in controversy and returned to the office, had...