Tutwiler Coal, Coke & Iron Co. v. Farrington
Citation | 39 So. 898,144 Ala. 157 |
Parties | TUTWILER COAL, COKE & IRON CO. v. FARRINGTON. |
Decision Date | 30 November 1905 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
On Rehearing, Jan. 9, 1906.
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by J. W. Farrington against the Tutwiler Coal, Coke & Iron Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
This is an action for damages caused by the falling in of the roof of one of defendant's mines, injuring plaintiff. There were several counts in the complaint, but all were eliminated except the fourth count, as amended, and the sixth count.
The fourth count was as follows: "The plaintiff claims of the defendant $15,000 as damages, for that, during the month of October, 1903, and for many months prior thereto, the defendant was operating and working coal mines in Jefferson county, Ala., and in the operation of said mines there were rooms and passageways, over and above which there were roofs formed of rock, slate, shale, or other material duing the said months of October, 1903, and the plaintiff was in the service of defendant, mining coal in slope No. 4, at or near Murray, Ala., and in going to the prosecution of plaintiff's work it was necessary for plaintiff to be under one of said roofs, and while under one of said roofs (going to his work), where he had a right to be as one of defendant's servants or employes, a piece of roof covering the point where plaintiff was fell upon plaintiff and broke one of his legs, and otherwise injured plaintiff about the body and limbs, by reason of which he suffered great physical and mental pain, etc.; and plaintiff avers that his said injuries were caused by reason of a defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant connected with or used in the business of the defendant, the said defect consisting of this: that said portion of said roof, which was a part of the ways, works, and machinery, or plant, connected with or used in the business of the defendant, was cracked, or had not sufficient strength or cohesive power to hold itself up or to be selfsupporting, and was not properly supported by props or pillars or other safe means of holding the same up, or to keep it from falling, as it was necessary for it to be to keep it from falling, and said part of said roof fell as a proximate consequence of said defect, and caused said injuries as aforesaid; and plaintiff avers that said defect arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied owing to, the negligence of the defendant's bank boss, one Durie, whose Christian name to plaintiff is unknown, and who was in the service of the defendant and intrusted by the defendant with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, machinery and plant of defendant were in proper condition."
Sixth count:
There were demurrers to the fourth count: (1) There are no facts averred which showed that there existed at said time any defects in the ways, works, machinery, or plant of the defendant. (2) The allegation that part of said roof was not properly supported does not allege a defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant of defendant. (3) The allegation that the roof fell in from being not properly supported is a mere conclusion of the pleader. (4) It does not appear that the negligence averred proximately caused plaintiff's injury. (5) The defendant did not owe plaintiff the measure of duty set forth in said count. (6) It does not appear with sufficient certainty that plaintiff received his injury while engaged in the service or employment of defendant. (7) No facts are averred which show with sufficient certainty that it was defendant's duty to prop said roof at said place." The same demurrers were interposed to the sixth count, with these additional grounds: These demurrers were overruled.
There were several pleas; one the general issue, and the others were contributory negligence. The third plea was as follows: "And for further plea and answer thereto the defendant says that the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his said alleged injuries, and that his said alleged negligence consisted of this: That plaintiff was aware that said roof was not propped or supported by props or pillars, as in said complaint alleged, and notwithstanding said knowledge plaintiff negligently remained in the service or employment of the defendant for an unreasonable length of time in the use of said roof, whereby and as a proximate consequence of which plaintiff received his said alleged injuries by a part of said roof falling on him." Demurrers were assigned to the third plea as follows. These demurrers were sustained.
The following charges were refused to defendant: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jefferson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.
......v. Hawkins, 192. Ala. 380, 68 So. 271; Wadsworth Red Ash Coal Co. v. Scott, 197 Ala. 361, 72 So. 542; South Brilliant. Coal Co. v. ... Merriweather v. Sayre Co., 161 Ala. 441, 49 So. 916;. Tutwiler Coal, C. & I. Co. v. Farrington, 144 Ala. 157, 39 So. 898; South ......
-
Clinton Mining Co. v. Bradford
...Co., 194 Ala. 311, 69 So. 921; Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 73 So. 933; T.C., I. & R.R. Co. v. Moore, 194 Ala. 134, 69 So. 540. The case of T.C., I. & R.R. Co. Smith, 171 Ala. 251, 260, 261, 55 So. 170, cited by appellant, has no application. It was pointed out in the opinion that the mine ma......
-
Stith Coal Co. v. Sanford
...... work (Tutwiler C. & C. Co. v. Farrington, 144 Ala. 157, 39 So. 898; Mascott Coal Co. v. ......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Lowe
......v. Rockhold, 143 Ala. 115, 126, 42 So. 96; Tutwiler, etc., Co. v. Farrington, 144 Ala. 157, 165, 39 So. 898; ...436, and other. authorities supra; Woodward Iron Co. v. Cook, 124. Ala. 349, 27 So. 455. . . ......