Ingram Day Lumber Co. v. Joh

Citations

• 107 Miss. 43
• 64 So. 934

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant. Fellow servant. Incompetency. Notice of incompetency. Injuries. Negligence of fellow servant.</p> <p>In a suit by a* servant against the master for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an incompetent fellow servant, it is necessary for plaintiff to show, (a) that his fellow servant was 'incompetent; (b) that the master knew, or should have known, that he was incompetent; (c) that the master failed to discharge the incompetent servant; and (d) that plaintiff was injured because Of the negligence of this servant.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>Incompetency denotes the converse of reliability in all that is essential to make up a reasonably safe person, considering the nature of the work and the general safety of those who are required to associate with such person in the general employment.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>Where the notice of incompetency given to the master by the plaintiff was only that the fellow servant ¡ was not a first-class striker, and for this reason plaintiff could not turn out his share of the work, there was nothipg in this to show that the fellow servant was a man whom the master might reasonably anticipate would injure the workmen whom he was helping.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>The fact that a blacksmith’s helper, or striker, in putting bolt's, struck a glancing or “nudging” blow which caused the hammer to slip off the object struck and injure plaintiff, did not constitute negligence in the discharge of his duties as such an accident may occur with the most skilled and prudent workman.</p>