Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana
| Citation | 141 La. 532,75 So. 232 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 21229 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Parties | WIGGINS v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF LOUISIANA |
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1917
(Syllabus by the Court.)
The rule that the master must furnish his servant safe tools with which to do his work has no application to such a simple tool as a sledge hammer, having no other defect than that it was heavier than was necessary for the work in hand.
As a general rule, the master is not liable for injury resulting to the servant from his using a defective simple tool. The reason is that the danger incident to a defect in a simple tool is an obvious danger, of which the servant undertaking to use the tool assumes the risk, especially if he has had experience in the use of such tools.
The master is not responsible for the dangerous situation of the servant, if the danger was known to the servant or was obvious to any one of ordinary intelligence and the servant accepted the employment knowing the danger and having ample opportunity to guard against it.
J. C Pugh & Son, of Shreveport, and Hunter C. Leake and Arthur A. Moreno, both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Thomas C. Barret, W. L. Grogan, and John B. Files, all of Shreveport, for appellee.
O'NIELL, J.
The plaintiff sued for $ 20,000 damages for personal injuries suffered in an accident that happened while he was in the employ of the defendant company. He obtained a verdict and judgment for $ 14,500, from which the defendant prosecutes this appeal. In answer to the appeal, the plaintiff prays that the amount of the judgment be increased to $ 20,000.
The plaintiff was one of the helpers in a drilling crew, composed of a driller and four helpers, who, at the time of the accident, were engaged in what they called knocking down pipe. That operation, as we understand it, consisted in unscrewing and separating into its original lengths the pipe that was taken out of a well. As the 4-inch pipe was drawn out of the well, it was separated into lengths of three or four joints each and left standing in the derrick. The rotary machine was then removed from over the 6-inch casing to a point about 3 feet from it, and an 8-inch hole was drilled to a depth of 60 or 80 feet, into which the pipe was lowered so that the men could reach the joints and unscrew them. The joints of the pipe were screwed so tight together that it was necessary at times to strike the sleeve or collar with a sledge hammer to loosen the threads. The plaintiff was thus engaged, hitting the collar on the 4-inch pipe with a 12-pound sledge hammer, when his foot slipped off of the muddy plank on which he was standing, and he fell into the machinery. His leg was caught between the sprocket wheel and chain that drove the rotary machine, and was so mangled that it had to be amputated near the hip joint.
It appears that, when the rotary machine was removed from over the well or casing, it left an opening in the derrick floor, 18 inches wide and 5 feet long; across which opening a 12-inch plank was thrown. The plaintiff was standing with one foot, or perhaps both feet, on the plank, while striking the pipe sleeve or collar with the sledge hammer.
He contends that the accident was the direct and immediate result of negligence on the part of the defendant company, in the following particulars, viz.:
First. That he was furnished an unsafe tool for the work required of him; that he should have been furnished a hammer weighing only 4 or 5 pounds; that the 12-pound hammer was so heavy that it increased the danger of his slipping on the wet and muddy derrick floor, or from the plank on which he stood.
Second. That the place at which he was required to stand while using the hammer was an unsafe place, because the plank on which he was instructed to stand was wet and muddy and slippery, and the hole in the derrick floor was left open and unguarded on each side of the plank.
Third. That the engineer in charge of the drilling crew was not where he should have been, and was not properly discharging his duties at the time of the accident, and that, if he had been at his post of duty and had been properly discharging his duties, he would have seen the accident in time to prevent it or minimize the danger.
The defense is that whatever danger there was in the work in which the plaintiff was engaged was apparent to any man of ordinary intelligence and prudence, and that the plaintiff was an experienced workman and assumed the risks incident to his employment.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff had had more than two years' experience at the work in which he was engaged at the time of the accident, and was as capable of observing and guarding against the dangers of the employment as was any man on the job, or as any man of superior authority could have been. It is not contended that there was any hidden danger in the employment, or that there was need of any special instruction as to the safe and proper manner of doing the work.
It is assumed, in the argument for the plaintiff, that the handling of such a heavy hammer as the 12-pound sledge caused him to lose his equilibrium; but, strange to say, there is no evidence in the record to support that argument. There is no testimony even to the effect that the handling of a 12-pound sledge is inclined to throw a man off his balance. If that element of danger in the use of a 12-pound sledge hammer is a matter of such simple philosophy and common sense as to warrant our taking judicial cognizance of it, it must...
To continue reading
Request your trial