Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Taunton

• Decision Date: 26 November 1918
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 280
• Citation: 16 Ala.App. 578,80 So. 152
• Parties: TALLASSEE FALLS MFG. CO. v. TAUNTON.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

80 So. 152

16 Ala.App. 578

TALLASSEE FALLS MFG. CO. v. TAUNTON.

5 Div. 280

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 26, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Action by L.A. Taunton against the Tallassee Falls Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W.A Jordan, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Holley & Morrow, of Wetumpka, for appellee.

SAMFORD J.

The complaint is in five counts. Counts 1, 2, and 3 claim for a breach of duty under subdivision 1 of section 3910 of the Code of 1907, and count 4 claims under subdivision 2 of the same section, and count 5 claims for a breach of duty in failing to furnish plaintiff with a safe place in which to work.

Counts 1 and 3 attribute the injury to a defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant of the defendant, and allege that it was the duty of the defendant to keep its ways, works, machinery, or plant in a safe condition and free from defects. An employer is only required to exercise reasonable care to furnish reasonably safe ways, works machinery, or plant. The allegations in counts 1 and 3 raise the duty of the employer to that of an insurer, which is not required. Merriweather v. Sayre Mining Co., 161 Ala 441, 49 So. 916; Huyck v. McNerney, 163 Ala. 245, 50 So. 926. The demurrer to these counts should have been sustained. Count 2, while describing the place in defendant's factory at which plaintiff was hurt in detail, fails to allege that it was defective. For aught that appears, the place as described might have been in perfect condition and necessary in the operation of defendant's plant. Huyck v. McNerney, 163 Ala. 244, 50 So. 926.

In the fourth count as drawn, after alleging the negligence of a superintendent in "causing or allowing the defects in the ways, works, machinery, or plant of the defendant," the complaint fails to allege that this negligence on the part of the superintendent was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. The nearest approach to an allegation of proximate cause is as follows:

"That the plaintiff, while engaged in the employ of the defendant company and while acting within the scope of his employment, and while doing what was required of him by the superior officers of the defendant company, was going down said inclined way or walk leading from the waste room in said cotton mill into the shoddy room, and, as a proximate consequence thereof, slipped and fell," etc.

This cannot be taken as an allegation that the negligence of the superintendent was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and hence the demurrer raising this point should have been sustained.

The same reasoning is applicable to the fifth count of the complaint, that count failing to allege that the steep slick, smooth, worn, and dangerous walk was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Notwithstanding...