Huff v. Bear Creek Mill Co.

Citations

• 116 Miss. 509
• 77 So. 306

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant. Injuries to servant. Contributory negligence.</p> <p>Where the line of shafting which caused the injury and death of a deceased servant was unprotected and uninclosed and, revolving at a high rate of speed, was apt to cause the clothing of persons passing near, it to entwine around and throw them upon the shafting, and it was liable in case the belt was being .sewed to cause the strings of the belt to strike against the rapidly revolving shaft and jerk and draw a person holding it, upon the shafting, and injure him, and the shafting could have been inclosed and rendered safe at a trifling expense and all danger thus avoided. In such case the master did not furnish the servant so killed with a safe place to work.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>In such case even though the servant was guilty of contributory negligence, this under our statute would not constitute a defense but would only entitle the master to measure his negligence against the negligence of the employee.</p> <p>3. Death. Damages. Adequacy.</p> <p>In a suit by a son for the death of his father, an award of fifty dollars was grossly inadequate, where there was no question as to the right of the son of deceased who was entitled to recover one-half of the damages on account of deceased’s suffering before death, together with one-half of the value of his expectancy, such amounts being subject only to deductions on account of deceased’s contributory negligence.</p> <p>4. Release. Adequacy. Evidence.</p> <p>Under the evidence in this case the court held that the finding of the jury that the payment of five hundred dollars by the master to the widow of a deceased employee was not in full settlement of her claim for damages, was warranted, such a payment being inadequate for that purpose.</p>