Capital City Oil Works v. Black

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1892

Capital City Oil Works v. Black, 70 Miss. 8 (Miss. 1892)

Campbell

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The peremptory instruction asked by the defendant should have been given. A clearer case for such an one is rarely *11presented. On Ms own testimony, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any thing. His misfortune was the result •of his own stupid carelessness. He knew all and saw all, or might have seen if he used Ms eyes, that was involved in his undertaking to couple the cars, and rightly charged his injury to an accident such as not unfrequeutly befalls those whose business it is to apply brakes. His own contemporary view of the occurrence, as indicated by his acts, suggests his proper understanding that he had no claim on the defendant for damages, and that his action for them was the result of after-thought, born of his discharge from the service of the •defendant. The thought of holding a private individual responsible in damages in such case would not arise in any mind. The just rights of corporations, under the law, must be as zealously guarded and protected by the courts as those of natural persons.

Reversed, and remanded for a new trial.

Reference

Full Case Name: Capital City Oil Works v. Armistead Black
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Master and Servant. Injury to servant. Contributory negligence. A servant who fails to use ordinary care in looking out for danger, and, as a consequence, is injured while in the discharge of a hazardous duty, cannot recover therefor on the ground that the master failed to use means to prevent the inj ury. 2. Sasib. Alleged negligence of master. Case. The president of an oil company ordered out a loaded car, and as it rolled down the side-track he called to several employes present to know if any of them could couple it, when plaintiff, one of the laborers, who had some experience in handling cars, ran ahead of the car to couple it to another, the president urging him on, and at the same time directing another employe, a boy, to put on the brake, which, however, was not done. Plaintiff supposed the speed of the car would be controlled, and did not look back. It ran with force against the other car just as he reached it, injuring his hand. Held, that, as he might have seen the danger of the undertaking by looking, he could liot recover for the injury.