Mullican v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co.

83 So. 816, 121 Miss. 806
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1920
DocketNo. 20917
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 83 So. 816 (Mullican v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mullican v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co., 83 So. 816, 121 Miss. 806 (Mich. 1920).

Opinions

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was instituted by the appellants, Mrs. Mullican and her children, against the appellees, V. L. Crawford and the Meridian Light & Railway Company, for damages for the death of John W. Mullican, husband of the appellant and father of the children, caused by the negligence of the defendants. A demurrer to the declaration interposed by the Meridian Light & Railway Company was sustained by the court as to it, and a plea of discharge in bankruptcy by the appellee, Crawford, resulted in a judgment discharging him, from which judgments this appeal is prosecuted.

In order to have a clear view of the case presented and of the legal question involved, we consider it necessary to set out the declaration in full so' that we may determine whether or not it states a cause of action under the law. It may be here stated, in substance, that the appellee Crawford operated a manufacturing plant at Meridian for the manufacture of cotton linters into absorbent cotton for the purpose of making gun cotton and other high explosives. There were located in this plant several vats or boilers containing a boiling solution of chemicals. The deceased, Mulican, was employed to work in and around these vats, and ivas so employed when he fell into one of them, which caused his death. The declaration reads as follows:

“Plaintiffs charge that the said V. L. Crawford on the - day of -, 1.915, established a manufacturing plant in the city of Meridian, Lauderdale county, Miss., for the manufacture of cotton linters into absorbent cotton, cotton batting, etc., and the process of manufacturing in said plant was to take the cotton linters and cotton fiber and remove therefrom all fatty oils and acids, and to bleach it and put it through certain chemical processes and prepare it for making gun cotton and other high explosives. In order to pre[815]*815pare this cotton for gun cotton and other high explosives, the manufacturing plant of Y. L. Crawford, aforesaid, was located in a large building in Meridian on the north side of which is located a large lot of machinery which is operated and driven by electric power for carding and manipulating the cotton preparatory to bleaching, and on the south side of this building is what is called the ‘lder room,’ and in this ‘lder room’ on either side thereof are located a number of vats or boilers into which the cotton is immersed into chemical baths, which vats extend above the floor in the lder room some few feet, large vats or boilers holding many hundred gallons, which extend down into a cellar underneath the floor, and the tops are placed on these vats or boilers loosely by handhold, which are even and on a level with with the floor with the lder room, and into these three vats or boilers steam and hot water are let by pipes which enter the bottom of these three vats or boilers, and in these three vats or boilers a boiling solution of chemicals is kept in which is nitric acid, sulphuric acid, lunar caustic, and other dangerous and poisonous chemicals, and in the process of manufacturing cotton it is placed in these vats or boilers. No railing is provided or other guard or protection around the tops of these vats, the tops of which are even with the floor as aforesaid, and these tops are the only means of preventing a person from falling into the same in the darkness or in the absence of light.
“The plaintiffs charge that the defendant V. L. Crawford, on the 3d day of March, 1916, and before and after that time, had a contract with his codefendant, the Meridian Light & Bailway Company, who owned and operated an electric power plant in the city of Meridian, which contract was made by the said Y. L. Crawford with the said Meridian Light & Bailway Company for and on behalf of himself and his employees, [816]*816who were employed to work iu said manufacturing’ plant, one of whom was the said John W. Mullican, deceased, and to furnish electric lights and power for his (Y. L. Crawford’s) manufacturing plant, and for the benefit of his employees therein as aforesaid, and to operate the machinery used in said plant, the said manufacturing plant operated by the said V. L. Crawford was operated and driven by the electric power furnished by the said defendant, said Meridian Light & Railway Company, and by the dangerous agency of steam.
“And plaintiffs charge that this kier room with these vats of boiling chemicals as aforesaid was an exceedingly dangerous place to work, and that the tops of these vats were, of course, frequently removed, and had to be in order to immerse the cotton in them, and on account of the poisonous steam coming from them and the danger of falling into them, particularly at nighttime, the kier room was a most dangerous place to work, as both the defendants then and there well knew, and that Y. L. Crawford, as employer of J. W. Mullican, deceased, was bound by law to make this kier room a reasonably safe place to work by day and by night, and said Mullican was employed to work there at night, and in order to make this kier room a reasonably safe place to work, Crawford, instead of performing the duty himself of lighting the room, in order to prevent his employees from falling into said vats and being hurt in said kier room, employed the said Meridian Light & Railway Company to perform this duty for him, the duty, as aforesaid, which he owed John W. Mullican, and both the defendants well knew that it was of vast importance, in order to make this room a reasonably safe place to work, that these lights be kept burning constantly in the night.
“Plaintiffs charge that they file herewith a copy of the contract so made by Y: L. Crawford for and on [817]*817behalf of his employees as aforesaid with the Meridian Light & Railway Company and make the same a part of this declaration the same as if fully copied herein.
“Plaintiffs further charge that said Meridian Light & Railway Company had for a long time furnished the electric current which lights this kier room where John W. Mullican was required to work for Crawford among these dangerous vats of boiling chemicals, and the conduct of said Mulican there and his work there was based in good faith upon his expectations that said Light & Railway Company would continuously perform its duty under its contract aforesaid with his employer and master on his behalf made as aforesaid, and would not permit their lights to go out during working hours of the night and thus render this kier room an unsafe place to work.
“Plaintiffs further charge that on said 3d day of March, 1916-, said John W. Mullican being employed by the said Y. L. Crawford in said manufacturing plant aforesaid, and being at the time in the room known as the ‘kier room’ in the performance of his duty, that is, the room where the tops of these three vats or boilers came up with the level of the floor, aud over which vats the tops were placed as aforesaid on a level with the floor, and in the nighttime the electric lights in said plant, by the carelessness and negligence of said Meridian Light & Railway Company suddenly, on account of their defective machinery, and the carelessness or indifference of its agents and servants, were permitted to go out and left this room in darkness, and it so happened that just about this time, by the carelessness and negligence of said V. L. Crawford and his servants, the fellow servants of said J. W.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Howard v. Estate of Harper Ex Rel. Harper
947 So. 2d 854 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2006)
Guy Howard v. Talmadge L. Harper
Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005
Mims v. Frady
461 F. Supp. 736 (N.D. Mississippi, 1978)
Shubitz v. Consolidated Edison Co.
59 Misc. 2d 732 (New York Supreme Court, 1969)
Delta Construction Co. of Jackson v. City of Jackson
198 So. 2d 592 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1967)
Mitchell v. Atlas Roofing Manufacturing Co.
149 So. 2d 298 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1963)
Higgins Lumber Co. v. Rosamond
63 So. 2d 408 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1953)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Smith
153 So. 376 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1934)
Castetter v. Barnard
183 N.E. 681 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 So. 816, 121 Miss. 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullican-v-meridian-light-ry-co-miss-1920.