Wilder's Adm'r v. Southern Mining Co.
Decision Date | 19 May 1936 |
Citation | 96 S.W.2d 436,265 Ky. 219 |
Parties | WILDER'S ADM'R v. SOUTHERN MINING CO. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1936.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bell County.
Action by Martin Wilder's administrator against the Southern Mining Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed with directions.
Golden & Lay, of Pineville, for appellant.
N. R Patterson, of Pineville, and T. E. Mahan, of Williamsburg for appellee.
This appeal presents for review the action of the court giving a peremptory instruction at the instance of the Southern Mining Company at the close of the evidence in behalf of the administrator of Martin Wilder's estate.
The Southern Mining Company, a corporation, was engaged in mining coal in Bell county, Ky. Martin Wilder, a young man about twenty-one years of age, was in its employment as "empty hole coupler." He was working, at the time of his injuries, "at the underpass of the empty track under the slate dump track." This underpass was about thirty-four inches from the floor to the overhead and twelve or fourteen feet wide. It was formed by the empty hole track passing under the slate track. Wilder's usual duty was to couple empty cars on the empty hole track. Occasionally, a car loaded with coal would become wedged in the underpass, when it would be his duty to couple it to the cars attached to the motor so it could be pulled through the underpass. In some instances, it was necessary, and became his duty, to move blocks of coal off of the top of the wedged car by hand or with a pick or any way he could, so the loaded car would pass under the trestle. The loaded car when wedged in the underpass was pulled by the motor operated by the motorman, onto the empty track around to the dumping device and tipple. At the time Wilder sustained injuries, resulting in his death, he was under the trestle in the underpass, to couple the wedged car to the approaching empties for the purpose of removing the wedged car with the empties. Within about four minutes after he went under the trestle to perform this duty, he was dragged by the moving cars from under the trestle. His overalls were thereby ripped from the top through to the middle of the crotch; his breast crushed; ribs broken and "bulged up."
At that time and place J. Mooney was the motorman in charge of the motor and the attached cars which were to be coupled by Wilder to the wedged one. S. B. Saylor was the motorman's assistant. His duties were those of a coupler "after the motor." In coal mining parlance, they were "buddies." They were at the shop. Wilder was at "the slate track," about sixty feet from them. He "hollered" to them "to come on back and pull a car out from under the trestle." At that time they were at the corner of the shop, about fifteen car lengths from the motor. Immediately after calling them, he "started back toward the trestle." Mooney "turned and went back toward the motor." Saylor "went into the shop." Mooney could not see from the shop, or from the motor, back under the underpass. It was Wilder's duty when the backing was completed to make the coupling in the underpass. It was Saylor's duty to be at a point where he could give signals to the motorman and at the same time see and warn Wilder. He was not at a point where he could give signals to the motorman and see or warn Wilder, but was at the shop at the time Wilder was injured. After Wilder requested them to help remove the wedged car, the motorman went to his motor and "began to back up," and while so engaged he could not see Wilder and Wilder could not see him.
The motorman was asked and answered thus:
Other verbal testimony and the circumstantial evidence corroborate that of Mooney, but it is entirely unnecessary to narrate either. The evidence also shows that a certain bolt was out of the frame of the trestle and a post thereof was out of position. The absence of the bolt, the condition of the post, and the dimensions of the underpass were no more than innocuous conditions, present on the occasion of Wilder's injuries, and in no wise causally connected with his injuries.
To the same effect see Home Oil & Gas Co. v. Dabney, 79 Kan. 820, 102 P. 488; Eberhardt v. Glasgow Mut. Tel. Ass'n, 91 Kan. 763, 139 P. 416; Stone v. Boston & Albany R. Co., 171 Mass. 536, 51 N.E. 1, 41 L.R.A. 794; Orton v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 7 F. (2d) 36; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Columbia, 65 Kan. 390, 69 P. 338, 340, 58 L.R.A. 399." . See Fiechter v. City of Corbin, 254 Ky. 178, 71 S.W.2d 423, 428.
It is very clear that the absence of the bolt from the frame of the trestle, the condition of the post, and the dimensions of the underpass cannot be considered as a remote cause of Wilder's injuries.
The Southern Mining Company's view of the accident, Wilder's injuries, and the proximate cause thereof, is stated thus:
This impercipient statement of the decisive issue evinces a disregard of the controlling facts and the governing principles applicable thereto, as we shall hereinafter endeavor to show.
It should be admitted that in going under the trestle to couple the wedged car to the empties, and in making the coupling, Wilder was in no danger of an injury, unless and until the empties, as they were moved by the motor, approached and contacted the wedged car. The movement of the empties by the motorman, as described by him, manifestly jeopardized Wilder.
It is true his exact position or how he was engaged at the time of the contact of the empty cars with the wedged one, or when or how his clothing was thereby caught, breast crushed, and his ribs broken, in some way by the oncoming cars, are not described by an eyewitness; but the circumstantial evidence establishes that the contacting the wedged car with the empties, as the latter were moved by the motor under the control of the motorman, contemporaneously happened with his injuries. This circumstance establishes sufficiently, without the testimony of an eyewitness, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Wilder's Adm'R v. Southern Mining Co.
-
McDowell v. Kentucky Utilities Company, No. 2007-CA-002208-MR (Ky. App. 2/13/2009)
...the boil below the dam at approximately 6:30 p.m. Causation may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Wilder's Administrator v. Southern Mining Co., 265 Ky. 219, 96 S.W.2d 436, 439 (1936). But in Wilder's Administrator, the defendant had control of all of the instrumentalities surrounding t......
-
Davies Flying Service v. United States
...as well as elsewhere. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Applegate's Adm'x, 268 Ky. 458, 468, 105 S.W.2d 153; Wilder's Adm'r v. Southern Mining Co. 265 Ky. 219, 225, 96 S.W.2d 436; Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell's Adm'r, 260 Ky. 795, 805, 86 S.W.2d 708. Also see United States v. Fotopulos, 9 C......
-
R. B. Tyler Co. v. Cantrell
... ... As was ... said in Wilder's Adm'r v. Southern Mining ... Company, 265 Ky. 219, 96 S.W.2d 436, 440: "It is ... within ... ...