Tuscaloosa Waterworks Co. v. Herren

• Decision Date: 14 June 1901
• Citation: 31 So. 444,131 Ala. 81
• Parties: TUSCALOOSA WATERWORKS CO. v. HERREN. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

31 So. 444

131 Ala. 81

TUSCALOOSA WATERWORKS CO. v. HERREN. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 14, 1901

Appeal from Tuscaloosa county court; J. J. Mayfield, Judge.

Action by L. L. Herren against the Tuscaloosa Waterworks Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Fitts &amp Fitts, for appellant.

Robison Brown and Henry A. Jones, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant to attend and operate machinery situated in two rooms of its pumping house. One of the rooms containing the engine, heater, etc., was below the other, and was connected by a stairway with the room above. A superintendent of the plant, in directing the making of repairs in the lower room, caused a scaffold to be made which was supported in part by a scantling or piece of timber placed laterally with one end rested on a step of the stairs high above the basement floor, and so as to leave room for one to pass at its end along the stairs. In that position the timber had lain for about 10 days, and of this plaintiff had knowledge, he having passed up and down the stairway many times each of those days in attending to his duties. On the evening of the happening which gave rise to the suit, he had gone over the stairs, and later started to visit the room below, which was deep, and lighted only by a dimly burning lantern. After descending four or five steps, his foot came in contact with the timber, and from that cause he fell to the basement floor, and was badly injured. These are the controlling facts as condensed from the plaintiff's own testimony, and he was the only witness examined on the trial except as to the extent of his injury and damages. Plaintiff was thus left to tell his own story, and has done so with apparent honesty, but the case he makes does not warrant his recovery.

If it be assumed that defendant was negligent in having the timber on the stair, yet the doctrine of contributory negligence works the plaintiff's defeat. The law classes as negligent, not only conscious imprudence, but also forgetfulness of, and inattention to, dangers which are both known and understood. Railroad Co. v. Hall, 87 Ala 708, 6 So. 277 Wilson v. Railroad Co.,

85 Ala. 269, 4 So. 701; Railroad Co. v. Banks, 104 Ala. 508, 16 So. 547.

It cannot be doubted that the plaintiff knew the timber's position, and understood whatever danger attended a misstep upon or against it. So far as the evidence shows, he had no reason to believe it had been removed before the accident. Such danger as it created was obvious, requiring no special experience or admonition to cause it to be fully appreciated by a person...