The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-14
ALApAMA 'srEEL AND WIRE co. V

erated e machine shop. count of the complaint is sufficient as stating cause of action which ayers that on a certain specified day while the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in it's shop hoisting casting by means of a block ana chain, his foot was caught by said casting falling on the same, in- fifiicting the injuries complained Of, ana then ayers that said injury was caused as the proximate consequence and by req son of the negligence of certain named person in the service or employment or the defendant, who had superintendence entrusted to him, while in the exercise of such superintednence, In that piaintin was inexperienced in said work by req son thereof said work was dangerous to plaintiff, and the said superintendent with knowledge of plaintiffs inexperience and the danger to him in said work, caused plaintiff to work thereat. and negiigentiy failed to warn and instruct him, or see that he was warned and instructed con- corning the danger thereof, and that by reason of such negligent failure to warn and instruct the plaintiff. the plaintiff was injured. ts
 2 Pleading and practice; continuance of cause; when discretion fof court not abused. In the trial of civil case, after the plaintiff and the defendant had ari- nounced ready and the jury had been se- lected. plaintiff was allowed to amend the complaint by adding new counts thereto. The defendant requested the court to grant continuance because said new ao-
 aitional counts introduced new matter not contained in the original counts to tine complaint. and the defendant was taken by surprise by the amendment of the com piaint, and for the further reason that the defendants most material witness was absent and his deposition had been taken before the additional counts were added
 Said additional counts charged the
 cause of the injury to plaintiff to
 be due to the negligence of material witness for the defendant. who was shown to be absent. It was shown that the plaintiffs coun- sel had prepared the additional counts several days prior to the day of the trial. but had not filed them nor asked to fle them until after the jury had been ses Iected. The defendants counsel stated that the examination of the material wit ness who was absent, had been taken on the theory that he was one of those charged with negligence under the origt- nal complaint, and the attorney further stated that he could not state to the court that he would have other evidence on ] the trial If the cause was continued, but that he might have. Held: That in refus- | ing the motion of the defendant for con- | tinuance, the court did not abuse its dis cretion, and such refusal constituted no l ground of reversal.
 8. Action for negligence; admissibility | of evidence.--In an action by an efnploye i against a1is employer to recover damages l for personal injuries alleged to have been | sustined by the plaintiff, while moving ! a heavy piece of machinery by means of a block and tackle, where the evidence showed that the plaintiff had had but very little experience in the kind of work he was engaged in at the time of the injury
 1t Is competent for the piaintim in the examination of a witness who had testi- | fled that he had worked about machine | shops three or four years and had occa- | sion to remove machinery by block and | tackle, how long a man ought to work ir | moving heavy machinery in that manner before he would be qualified or compe' tent 1s | A. Same; same.-In such a case 1t il
 competent for the plaintiff to ask sucf | witness to state whether or not he knev the plaintiffs general experience in tht
 kind of work plaintiff was engaged in al the time of the injury after he agair
 worked with the defendant.
 l 5. Same; same.-In such case, where ] a witness is shown to have known of tht
 character of work the plaintiff was en gagged in at the time of the injury is ask Gu LO SLaLG WneLu6T UT HUI yOu AAOW LAe plaintiffs general experience in work oi
 that kind after he came to defendant'I rod mill to work" his answer that "aftel he came there to work he looked to be {
 green man to me- is not only irresponsiv'
 to the question and should for that reason
 be excluded but Is otherwise tncompe
 tent and inadmissible.
 6. Same; same.-In such case where { brother of the plaintiff testified that upol ' hau ha 0F
 defendant to give the plaintiff job. thu superintendent replied that he thought h, l could give him work, and that few day.
 thereafter he was put to work, it is com
 potent to ask such witness if at the timt there was anything said about plaintiff inexperience.
 T. Same; same.-In an action by an em.
 ployee against an employer to recover
 damages for injuries alleged to have beer
 sustained by the plaintiff while he was
 engaged in operating drill press in de
 fendant's machine shop, and negligence on the part of the defendant in putting 1.-the plaintiff to do such work when he was inexperienced therein, was one of the issues in the case, and 1t was shown thai the plaintiff was M years old and had
 been employed in the defendants shop fol
 four months. whereas witness for the defendant testified that he began to work in macnlne Snop when ne was 1S years old, and that drill press work was simple
 and generally done by boys. it is mol competent to ask such witness how old 1 he was when he first operated a drill J press, nor is it competent to prove that | other employees of the defendant much younger than the plaintiff had operated
 drill presses for the defendant
 | 8. Action for negligence; charge oi court to jury.-Ln an action by an employt against an employer to recover damages for personal injuries which were sustain. ed by the plaintiff while engaged in the service of the defendant, where the negli. Eence complained of is that the plaintiff was inexperienced in the work he was | engaged in at the tin1eS of the injury which work was dangerous to plaintiff
 and that the superintendent of the defen- dant with knowledge of plaintiffs mex
 perience and the danger to him in said work instructed him to do said work, but failed to warn him of the dangers there of, and it was shown by the evidence that at the time of the injury the plaintiff
 was just 21 years old and had been em- ployed by the defendant for four months,
 a charge. asserts a correct proposition of structs the jury that "it is the duty. of a
 master who Knowingly employs youth ful and inexperienced servant and subject him to the control of another servant to see that he is not employed in a more dangerous position than that for which he was employed. and to give him such
 warning of his danger as his youth or in- experience demands"