Stirling Coal & Coke Co. v. Fork

Citation141 Ky. 40,131 S.W. 1030
PartiesSTIRLING COAL & COKE CO. v. FORK.
Decision Date02 December 1910
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hopkins County.

Action by Robert Fork against the Stirling Coal & Coke Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions to dismiss petition.

Belcher & Sparks, for appellant.

Letcher R. Fox, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

The appellee, Fork, a man of mature years and ordinary intelligence, was employed by appellant company to shovel coal slack into a car; and was told to get a shovel that had been used by others who had done the same kind of work. When appellee picked up the shovel, he discovered that the round wooden piece on the top of the handle was cracked in one or two places, so that the wood revolved on the iron rod that was run through it for the purpose of strengthening the handle. He then said to the foreman that he did not want to use that shovel, and thereupon the foreman told him to go ahead and work with it; that others had been using it, and he could do so; and that he would get him another one. This was all that was said about the shovel. Soon after this, and on the same day, appellee's thumb was pinched by the crack in the handle, causing a slight bruised place, but he continued to work during the day. On the next day, his hand became inflamed and blood poisoning set up, with the result that appellee lost considerable time and suffered no little. To recover damages for the injury sustained, as he alleged by the defect in the shovel, he brought this action and on a trial was awarded damages in the sum of $275.

A good part of the record is taken up with the question of whether or not the blood poisoning resulted from the bruise on his thumb or a cut on the hand that he received in another way. But, in view of the conclusion we have reached, it is not necessary to discuss the cause of the blood poisoning. The rule has been frequently announced by this court that it is the duty of the master to exercise ordinary care to furnish the servant reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work, and that if he fails to do this, and the servant is injured by reason of the defective tools or appliances, he may maintain an action in damages to compensate him for the injuries sustained. Pullman Co. v. Geller, 128 Ky 72, 107 S.W. 271, 129 Am. St. Rep. 295, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 884; Rogers v. South Covington Street Ry. Co., 112 S.W 630, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 1067; Louisville Hotel Co. v. Kaltenbrun, 80 S.W. 1163, 82 S.W. 378, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 208, 669; American Tobacco Co. v. Adams, 137 Ky. 414, 125 S.W. 1067. To this rule there are qualifications and exceptions, growing out of assurances of safety made by the master, promises to repair, and risks assumed by the servant; but we will not go into these branches of the law. We think we may properly put this case upon the ground that the tool furnished to appellee, as well as the use to which he put it, was so simple, and the place it was being used so free from danger, that he should not be allowed to recover for the injury sustained, assuming that it was caused by the defect in the handle.

It must be recognized by every one that the rule of safe tools and appliances should not be extended to every tool and every appliance that is used by laborers and servants in the ordinary everyday affairs of life....

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Antler v. Cox
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 12 Junio 1915
    ...... master needs no extended discussion. (Lapier v. Beaubien. Ice & Coal Co., 162 Mich. 533, 127 N.W. 692, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 199; Stirling Coal & Coke Co. v. Fork,. 141 Ky. 40, 131 S.W. 1030; Hogg v. Standard Lumber. Co., ......
  • Fordyce Lumber Co. v. Lynn
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 19 Mayo 1913
    ...... to the jury in this case.". . .          See. also Stirling Coal Co. v. Fork, 141 Ky. 40,. 131 S.W. 1030, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 837, ......
  • Ohio Valley Ry. Co. v. Copley
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 15 Mayo 1914
    ...... the appellant. He was engaged in stripping coal bumpers,. which was effected by cutting the heads from the steel rivets. ... "common" tool rule was recognized by this court in. Stirling Coal & Coke Co. v. Fork, 141 Ky. 41, 131. S.W. 1030, 40 L.R.A. (N. S.) ......
  • Wausau Southern Lumber Co. v. Cooley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Noviembre 1922
    ...so that it revolves on the iron rod which supports it and pinched his hand, causing a wound which was followed by blood poisoning. At 141 Ky. 40, 131 1030, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858, the court, in discussing liability of a master in reference to simple tools, said: "It must be recognized by e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT