Young v. Hahn
| Decision Date | 15 December 1902 |
| Citation | 70 S.W. 950 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. HAHN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Conrad Hahn against John Young. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 69 S. W. 203. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Jas. B. & Chas. J. Stubbs, for plaintiff in error. John Grothgar and D. D. McDonald, for defendant in error.
A particular statement of the facts of the case is not essential to an understanding of the points presented to this court. The case will be found fully stated in the opinion of the court of civil appeals. Defendant in error, who, as plaintiff, recovered in the district court, was hurt while in the service of plaintiff in error, engaged, with a number of others, in loading a ship with sacks of borax. The work was done by encircling a number of sacks with a loop or sling of rope, and hoisting the bundle from the wharf, alongside which the ship lay, to the deck of the vessel, and across it to the open hatch, through which it was lowered into the hold where plaintiff was at work. This was done by means of derricks attached to the mast of the ship. When one of the "sling loads," as they are called, was thus raised upon the deck, one of the sacks escaped from it and fell through the open hatch into the hold, striking and injuring plaintiff. The negligence alleged against defendant consisted of the acts or omissions of his foreman, McBride, in (1) causing the derrick to be improperly rigged; (2) in carelessly handling the sling load after it came on deck, while acting as gangwayman; (3) in failing to warn plaintiff of the danger when the sack fell,—all of which acts and omissions were relied upon as causes of the injury. The evidence left the cause of the fall of the sack in doubt, and a conclusion that it was due to the negligence of McBride, in one or more of the particulars charged, could only be deduced as an inference from the testimony. There was evidence tending in some measure to sustain the first and third allegations of negligence, if not the second. The evidence showed that such work was done under the immediate supervision of McBride, the foreman, when Young was absent. Young had been present at the loading of this ship before the occurrence, and was there afterwards. But at the time of the accident McBride was in charge of the work, and the laborers were under him. He was also then temporarily performing the duty of gangwayman, which was to receive and watch the sling loads as they came on deck, and to give the necessary signals and directions to the man operating the winch by which the movement of the derrick was controlled, and to those in the hold. The regular gangwayman, shortly before the occurrence in question, had told McBride to take his place while he went to get more men. There was no direct evidence that McBride had or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. Coldwater Cattle Company
...R. Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W.2d 921.2 Hugo, Schmeltzer & Co. v. Paiz, 104 Tex. 563, 141 S.W. 518, 519; Young v. Hahn, 96 Tex. 99, 70 S.W. 950.3 Lantry-Sharpe Contracting Co. v. McCracken, supra; common law rule of decision adopted by the Texas Act of Congress, January 20, 1840, pr......
-
Lantry-Sharpe Contracting Co. v. McCracken
...the above propositions: Douglas v. Railway Co., 63 Tex. 567; Russ v. Railway Co., 112 Mo. 45, 20 S. W. 473, 18 L. R. A. 823; Young v. Hahn, 96 Tex. 101, 70 S. W. 950; Railway Co. v. Williams, 75 Tex. 7, 12 S. W. 835, 16 Am. St. Rep. 867; Railway Co. v. Peters, 87 Tex. 222, 27 S. W. 257; Nix......
-
Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. v. Cooper
...& Dolson v. Kriger, 109 S. W. 373; Ry. Co. v. Patton, 26 S. W. 978; Mfg. Co. v. Femelat, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 36, 79 S. W. 869; Young v. Hahn, 96 Tex. 99, 70 S. W. 950. As warranted by the rule announced in the cases cited, the special charge was properly refused, because, we think, it could n......
-
Southwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Riser
...while in the performance of such duties, is the negligence of the master. Railway Co. v. Wise, 101 Tex. 465, 109 S. W. 112; Young v. Hahan, 96 Tex. 99, 70 S. W. 950; Quinn v. Lumber Co., 126 S. W. 3; Abilene Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 342, 91 S. W. 607; Mexican Nation Ry.......