Gray v. Floersheim
Gray v. Floersheim
Opinion of the Court
An examination of the record shows that this case involved the questions of defendants’ negligence and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The testimony bearing on each of these questions was such as to necessarily carry the case to the jury. It was fairly submitted to them in a clear and impartial charge which appears to be free from any error of which defendants have any just reason to complain.
It would have been plain error to have given binding instructions to find for defendants as requested in their point recited in the first specification.
There was no error in the learned judge’s answer to defendants’ point recited in the second specification; nor has the able and ingenious argument of the learned counsel for the defendants convinced us that the court erred in affirming their point quoted in the third specification, but at the same time leaving “ it to the jury to determine whether any of the defendants were personally guilty of negligence.” In the last clause of the point, the court was requested to say that the defendants " are not responsible for any negligence in such operation (meaning inside operation of their mine) in which they did .not personally participate.” In view of the testimony, there was no error in submitting to the jury, for their determination, the question whether defendants did personally participate in any negligence in the inside operation of their mines.
We find no error in the record that would justify us in reversing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Lemuel Gray, by his next friend v. Henry Floersheim, late trading as Germania Gas Coal Co.
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence—Mines—Contributory negligence—Sudden peril—Master and servant—Fellow servant—Line of duty. In an action against a mining company to recover damages for personal injuries caused by an unruly and dangerous mule, the case must be submitted to the jury where it appears that, although the working of the mule was under the direction of the mining boss, defendants knew of its vicious and unruly chai’acter. In such a case where there is testimony that plaintiff, a boy employed to open doors in a mine, met the mule which was running away, and turned and ran towards a place which he deemed safe, but was caught by the cars running off the track, the case is for the jury, although it appears that plaintiff could have stepped behind a neighboring door aud avoided the accident. Where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the plaintiff when injured was in the place where his work required him to be, the case is for the im'y-