Tennessee Copper Co. v. Gaddy

• Decision Date: 05 June 1913
• Docket Number: 2,343.
• Citation: 207 F. 297
• Parties: TENNESSEE COPPER CO. v. GADDY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

207 F. 297

TENNESSEE COPPER CO. v. GADDY.

No. 2,343.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 5, 1913

Howard Cornick and Cornick, Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, all of Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.

James B. Cox, of Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant in error.

Before WARRINGTON, KNAPPEN, and DENISON, Circuit Judges.

WARRINGTON Circuit Judge.

This proceeding is to reverse a judgment recovered against the Copper Company by Nevada Gaddy as the widow of Thomas Gaddy. The suit was for alleged negligent injuries received by the husband which resulted in his death. Gaddy received his injuries while in the employ of the company and working in one of its copper mines. The acts of negligence alleged are in substance: (1) That without the knowledge or fault of the deceased the company knowingly left a stope in an unsafe and dangerous condition, from which a rock of several tons in weight fell and rolled to another portion of the mine, where deceased was working, striking and fatally injuring him; (2) that the company neglected to prop and make secure the dangerous portions of such stope, by reason of which the injuries and death ensued without fault of the deceased. The case went to trial upon the general issue, and resulted in a verdict of $6,000. The company moved for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, and both motions were overruled. The charge of the court below is not included in the record nor was any exception taken to it.

Two questions only are presented to this court: One of assumed risk, and the other of contributory negligence. In the absence of the charge, it will be presumed, not only that the company was negligent, but particularly that the jury was properly instructed upon the two questions brought here; and indeed, the verdict and judgment must be regarded as conclusive of those questions, unless the pertinent evidence was not in conflict and simply tended to show either (1) that deceased knew or was chargeable with knowledge of the danger and voluntarily exposed himself to it (Tex. & Pac. Ry Co. v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319, 324, 33 Sup.Ct. 518, 57 L.Ed. 852; Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. Wright, 207 F. 281, decided by this court May 6, 1913); or (2) that the acts of deceased were such that fair-minded men could not draw different conclusions therefrom touching the existence of neglect on his part directly contributing to his injury (Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Harvey, supra, 228 U.S.at page 324, 33 Sup.Ct.at page 520, 57 L.Ed. 852).

The inquiry thus comes to be whether, under the evidence adduced, it was open to the court below to determine these questions as mere matters of law. This is to be tested by the rules applicable to the motion to direct a verdict in favor of defendant made at the close of its evidence. On such a motion the plaintiff was entitled to have taken in her behalf the most favorable view of the evidence. Hales v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 200 F. 533, 537, 118 C.C.A. 627 (C.C.A. 6th Cir.); Erie R.R. Co. v. Weber, 207 F. 293, decided by this court June 3, 1913.

There was evidence tending to show the following state of facts Gaddy, a comparatively inexperienced miner, was at the time of receiving his injuries working in the mine at a depth of between 300 and 400 feet underground, and more than 100 feet below, though not directly under, the place from which the rock fell; and no mining had been done at that place for as much as two years. Gaddy was assisting to break up material previously blasted, containing copper ore, and loading and removing it upon a tram car to the shaft. He was working with three other persons in a place dimly lighted by four small lamps, one of which was hooked on each of their caps. They were under no duty to inspect either roof or walls of the mine. Besides, the angle of the stope was such as would under any circumstances have prevented them from seeing the place upon which the rock had rested. The blasting of ore was done at a level above that of the place where these men worked, and while ...