Court Opinion

ID: 9828779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:43:59.950879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.057930
License: Public Domain

DUNKLIN, Chief Justice.
While in the employment of the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company, Ocie L. Clayton sustained an injury to the index finger of his left hand, and he has appealed from a judgment denying him a -recovery against the railway company for damages resulting therefrom.
As grounds for a recovery plaintiff alleged that he was employed by the defendant to do manual labor in- connection with the rebuilding and reconstruction of defendant’s main line of railroad maintained by it in handling interstate commerce. According to further allegations in his petition, in the course of his employment he was required to use a claw-bar to pull spikes holding old rails that were to be replaced with new ones; the claw-bar so furnished was badly worn and in a defective condition for such use; by reason of that condition it slipped while he was using it to pull one of the spikes, causing his left hand to be mashed between the handle of' the claw-bar and an iron plate in the tie; by reason of his minority and inexperience he did not appreciate the danger of using the claw-bar; and defendant was guilty of negligence in furnishing it to him for such use, and in failing to warn him of the danger incident thereto; such negligence was the proximate cause of his injury, and he sustained damages in the sum of $2,600, which were itemized in his petition.
The defendant pleaded a general demurrer, certain special exceptions to the petition, a general denial, and assumed risks.
The following facts were established by plaintiff’s uncontroverted testimony upon the trial of the case before a jury: At the time he was employed plaintiff was 20 years of age. , He was employed by the defendant as a common .laborer to assist in the work of reconstruction and rebuilding of defendant’s railroad track for use *694in intra and inter state traffic. He had be«n working in that capacity about ten days before his injury hereinafter related; had never before worked for a railroad. On the morning of his injury he was knocking rocks from under the rails with a foot-adz for about two hours. At the direction of the straw-boss he went down the line and began pulling spikes with a crow-bar, that he took off the work car, which was about six feet long and approximately an inch or inch and a half in diameter. Did not examine it at that time. After pulling spikes with the bar for about the length of a rail, he came to a spike the bar would not pull because he could not get it under the spike until the straw-boss drove it under. At the direction of the straw-boss, he went down the line and after pulling two or three more spikes he attempted to pull another and in so doing the bar slipped off the spike, causing him to fall, and in falling the index finger of his left hand was caught between the bar and the tie plate and injured. His injury has caused him pain and suffering and he has had medical treatment for it.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
“Q. Had you ever used a crow bar to pull spikes before that morning? A. No.
“Q. State what instructions you were given'by the foreman, or by anyone there, in connection with' the use of that bar. A. There was no instructions.
“Q. I will ask you, what was the condition of that crow bar with reference to the place where it caught the spikes? A. It was just worn smooth; just like a worn out claw hammer. It wouldn’t hold under the spike; the spike had to be up an inch or two before it would pull it.
“Q. The spikes prior to the one on which you were injured; had it caught on all of them? A. All except one.
“Q. That was the one where you drove it under? A. Yes.
“Q. The foreman told you to go on down ahead and he would get that one? A. Yes.
“Q. Did anybody tell you it might be dangerous to use that crow bar?
“Mr. Benson: Object to that as irrelevant and immaterial; leading and suggestive.
“The Court: Sustained.
“Mr. Coffield: We except. Q. Did anybody warn you to be careful in using that bar? A. No, sir.
“Q. When you first put it on the spike did it hold? A. 'Yes.
“Q. Then when you put your weight on it, it fell'? A. Yes. * * *
“Q. How long had you used that crow bar before you were injured? A. About twenty minutes.”
On cross examination he testified:
“Q. You had been, for several years prior to this time, earning your living by common labor, hadn’t you? A. Yes.
“Q. I believe you stated you were married? A. Yes.
“Q. Now, you made a statement to Mr, English here, up in your lawyer’s office with Mr. Eakman present, concerning this matter? A. Yes.
“Q. You said in that' statement: ‘this was about nine thirty in the morning, and at that time all the better crow bars had been picked by the men pulling spikes and' we had to take what was left,’ that is. right? A. That is right.
“Q. You said, T didn’t examine the bar when I first got it, but noticed it wouldn’t catch a spike head as it should, and on the-spike it would not pull the assistant foreman tried to drive the bar in under the-head with a maul, but couldn’t make it ’ take hold and told me to go on and he-would get another bar to pull that spike,’' that is right, isn’t it? A. Yes.
“Q. You did notice it was worn and slick and wouldn’t catch a spike like it. ought to? A. Yes.
“Q. It was worn so badly you noticed that when you first began using it? A. Some of the spikes it would pull all right; if the spikes were down like they should, be, it wouldn’t pull them.
“Q. You noticed that immediately, didn’t you? A. Yes.
“Q. You noticed it was in a worn, dilapidated condition, at the time, didn’t: you? A. Yes.
“Q. It works pretty much on the same-plan as a claw hammer, except the claw hammer isn’t nearly so large? A. You. pull down on the bar and you pull up on a claw hammer.
“Q. Well it operates to draw the-spikes? A. Yes.
Q. There is a heel immediately behind, which forks, and rests on the tie, and by putting weight on the upper end of the-bar, the spikes are drawn from the tie?'
A. That is right.
*695“Q. During the ten days you had been working there, prior to that accident, you had been working right along with the crew that was pulling spikes, hadn’t you?
A. I had been working behind them.
“Q. Were you working in sight of them? A. Yes.
“Q. You had seen them pull spikes and knew what they were doing? A. Yes.
“Q. You had been seeing that for ten days? A. No.
“Q. How long? A. About four days.'
“Q. What were you doing the other six days? A. We were stringing steel.
“Q. Doing what? A. Stringing steel rails.
“Q. . But for something like four days before you had this accident you had been working along there, and watching, or seeing the process of pulling spikes, hadn’t you? A. Yes.
“Q. When they told you to get the crow bar and start pulling spikes they didn’t tell-you how to do that? A. No.
“Q. You just knew how; you knew how to take that spike bar and work it? A. Anyone would know how to pull them.
“Q. You knew well how to pull the spikes, didn’t you? A. Yes.
“Q. How many spikes, between the time you started and the time you were hurt, did the crow bar slip off of? A. Two. ■
“Q. Did it catch under any of the spikes and slip off like it did the last one? A. No.”
On redirect examination by his counsel he further testified:
“Q. Did you examine that crow bar closely when you first picked it up? A. No.
“Q. Why didn’t you examine it closely at the time you took it? A. They were getting behind in front pulling spikes and we were in a hurry.
• “Q. Who was directing you to get on, if anyone? A. I don’t know his name, hut he is now supervisor at the Jacksboro bridge.
“Q. What was he doing at this time on this railroad? A. He was acting as assistant foreman.
“Q. About four days prior to this time, you said you had been knocking rocks from under the rails? A. Yes.
“Q. How far behind the men who were pulling spikes had you been? A. About a hundred yards.
“Q. How many men were pulling spikes ? A. I don’t know.
“Q. Did you see any of them hurt there, seriously? A. No.
“Q. Did you see any of their bars slip off? A. No.
“Q. Were you standing back there watching them, or were you knocking rocks from under the rails? A. I was working.
“Q. Had you watched them closely in their work? .A. No.”
At the conclusion of the testimony the court sustained defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict in its favor, and plaintiff has appealed from a judgment in accordance therewith.
Since under plaintiff’s pleadings he was employed as a laborer in work undertaken by the defendant in interstate commerce, the defense of assumed risks was available to the defendant; and ás stated in his brief here that is the only issue involved in this appeal, and that defense is available under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 54," which is controlling here.
In Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co. v. Hannig, 91 Tex. 347, 350, 43 S.W. 508, 510, this was said: “We understand the law to be that, when the servant enters the employment of the master, he has the right to rely upon the assumption that the machinery, tools, and appliances with which he is called upon to work are reasonably safe, and that the business is conducted in a reasonably safe manner. He is not required to use ordinary care to see whether this has .been done or not. He does not assume the risks arising from the failure of the master to do his. duty, unless he knows of the failure and the attendant risks, or, in the ordinary discharge of his own duty, must necessarily have acquired the knowledge. Bonnet v. Railway Co., 89 Tex. 72, 33 S.W. 334; [Texas & N. O.] Railroad Co. v. Bingle [91 Tex. 287], 42 S.W. 971.”
In Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Lempe, 59 Tex. 19, this is said: “Where the servant has equal knowledge with the master of the danger incident to the work, he takes the risk upon himself if he goes on with it.”
*696That announcement was quoted and followed in Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. French, 86 Tex. 96, 23 S.W. 642.
We quote this from 29 Tex.Jur. par. 88, p. 157: “No’duty rests upon the employer to warn experienced workmen of dangers ordinarily incident .to the employment; but he is bound to warn them of latent and abnormal dangers of which he is aware but the workman is not.”
That announcement is applicable to this case, notwithstanding plaintiff lacked some months of being 21 years of age, because his own testimony shows conclusively that the alleged defect in the crow-bar was patent and open to common observation, that it was known to him before and at the time of his injury, and that he was possessed of sufficient experience and discretion to understand and appreciate the risk of using it in that condition in the manner he was using it when he sustained the injury complained of. 39 C.J. par. 1016, p. 807; par. 1019, p. 810, and authorities there cited; 18 R.C.L. par. 172, p. 683. And in par. 177, beginning on page 691 of the same volume, this is said: “If the danger was fully appreciated there can be no recovery, whether the employee be youthful and inexperienced or otherwise. A minor employed as a servant-assumes, to the same extent as an adult, the ordinary dangers and risks of his employment which he actually knows and appreciates, and those that are so apparent and open that one of his age, experience, and capacity would, in the exercise of ordinary care, know and appreciate them.”
Many authorities are cited in the footnotes sustaining that announcement.
In Boldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 245 U.S. 441, 38 S.Ct. 139, 62 L.Ed. 385, it was said: “Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, except in the cases specified in § 4 [45 U.S.C.A. § 54], the employee assumes extraordinary risks incident to his employment, and risks due to negligence of employer and fellow employees, when obvious or fully known and appreciated by him.”
The case of Drake v. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co., 99 Tex. 240, 89 S.W. 407, Supreme Court, is the leading case- relied on by appellant to support his contention that whether plaintiff assumed the risks of working with the crow-bar under the circumstances, should have been submitted to the jury. We believe it sufficient to say that the facts of that case distinguish it from the present suit. And that the same can be said of other decisions of like character cited.
Even though it be said that the evidence was sufficient prima facie to require submission of the issue of alleged negligence on the part of the defendant in furnishing the crow-bar for plaintiff’s use, yet we believe it clear that plaintiff’s own testimony conclusively established the defense of assumed risk as a matter of law and that the trial court did not err in instructing a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.