Walker v. Louis Werner Sawmill Co.
Decision Date | 29 July 1905 |
Citation | 88 S.W. 988,76 Ark. 436 |
Parties | WALKER v. LOUIS WERNER SAWMILL COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Nevada Circuit Court JOEL D. CONWAY, Judge.
Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
On July 29th, 1902, plaintiff, Lee Walker, filed his amended and substituted complaint, in which he alleged that he was a minor, and sued by D. C. Walker, his next friend, and that on the 22d day of November, 1901, he was in the employ of the defendant as a common workman, assisting in running one of its trains, which train was engaged principally in hauling logs to the mill owned by the defendant at Sayre, Arkansas that he had no experience in running trains or engines, which was well known to the defendant; that the engine upon and about which he was placed to work was not provided with an apparatus with which to sand the track, had no headlight, and was not provided with lanterns; that plaintiff was set to work, while said train was running, to sand the track, it being his duty to pour sand on the track with a can from a place upon the pilot of the engine; that the defendant failed to provide a safe place for him to sit, and that on the night the injury occurred, after dark, the train stopped, and plaintiff left his position on the pilot to assist in making a coupling and to procure sand; that the engine had no headlight, and plaintiff was not provided with a lantern that there was no light about the engine except one lantern in the cab, and defendant kept no lookout, and could not have seen plaintiff if he had kept a lookout, on account of the failure of the defendant to provide lights; that, while plaintiff was in the discharge of his duty, the engineer, who was also a conductor and in charge of the train, negligently and without warning started the train; that the defendant had failed to provide a safe and sound roadbed, in that the ties were of uneven lengths, some six and some eight feet long and that, in attempting to regain his position on account of having no light and the insecure place he was required to work and of the uneven ties, he stumbled over said uneven ties, and fell with his hand upon the track, and was so badly injured that amputation of his hand became necessary to save his life; that the defendant gave him no warning of the unsound and unsafe condition of the engine and track, and that by reason of youth and inexperience he was not aware of the danger to which he was exposed; that by reason of his injury his ability to earn a living had been greatly and permanently decreased; that he suffered great pain, to his damage in the sum of $ 5,000.
The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, and pleaded contributory negligence.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maw v. Coast Lumber Co.
...... all the time he was employed by the defendant company. ( St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller, 126 F. 495, 61 C. C. A. 477, 63 L. R. A. 551; ...361; O'Donnell v. Am. Mfg. Co., 112 La. 720, 36 So. 661; Walker v. Louis-Werner Saw Mill Co., 76 Ark. 436, 88 S.W. 988;. Davis v. ......
-
Midland Valley Railroad Co. v. Ennis
...... death from one of the causes alleged in the complaint. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hempfling, 107 Ark. 476. . . ... facts. Language used by this court in the case of. Walker v. Louis Werner Sawmill Co., 76 Ark. 436, 88 S.W. 988, is peculiarly ......
-
Southern Anthracite Coal Company v. Bowen
...23; 142 Mass. 220; 55 F. 769; 21 S.W. 757; 124 Mo.App. 600. The master is not an insurer of the safety of his employees. 44 Ark. 524; 76 Ark. 436; 71 Ark. 518; 88 Ark. 295. While master cannot relieve himself from liability by delegating his authority, yet he can relieve himself from liabil......
-
Marcum v. Three States Lumber Company
...he cannot recover. 95 U.S. 439; 41 Ark. 542; 70 Ark. 603; 128 F. 529; 76 F. 125; 118 Mo.App. 152; 54 S.E. 110; 53 S.E. 658; 40 So. 280; 88 S.W. 988; 89 S.W. OPINION HART, J. (after stating the facts). In support of the judgment of the court directing a verdict for the defendant, now appelle......