Stirling Coal & Coke Co. v. Fork

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CARROLL, J.
• Citation: Stirling Coal & Coke Co. v. Fork, 141 Ky. 40, 131 S.W. 1030 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
• Decision Date: 02 December 1910
• Parties: STIRLING COAL & COKE CO. v. FORK.

131 S.W. 1030

141 Ky. 40

STIRLING COAL & COKE CO. v. FORK.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 2, 1910

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. There are few persons engaged...