Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; June 16, 1953; New Mexico; State Supreme Court
An action has been initiated for additional compensation due to the alleged failure of defendants Allison and Haney to provide necessary safety devices during a work operation that led to the decedent's death. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, prompting the defendants to appeal the judgment. The incident occurred on August 16, 1950, while the defendants were laying a sewer line in Albuquerque, spanning approximately 7,000 feet. The sewer trench, dug about 11 feet deep, was located near gas lines running 7 feet above it. On the day of the accident, the decedent, an employee, entered the sewer pipe to caulk joints after working for about two hours when an explosion occurred, resulting in injuries that caused his death.
The plaintiff claimed entitlement to 50% additional compensation, asserting that the death was due to the defendants' negligence in failing to provide legally required safety devices. The defendants denied these allegations. Evidence presented included prior gas leaks in the area that had been repaired, the presence of explosive gas in the sewer line after the explosion, and the hazardous working conditions due to low oxygen levels in the pipe. Following the explosion, tests confirmed gas presence, and an air compressor was utilized for hours to clear the line of gas. The explosion's force was significant enough to displace a manhole lid located 500 feet away from the accident site.
Southern Union Gas Company's gas pipes, carrying natural gas, run along Edith Street and supply service pipes to customers across a sewer line. During excavation by defendants Allison and Haney, the service pipes were disconnected and later reconnected after the trench was filled. Evidence indicated the availability and use of gas indicators and air compressors for detecting and eliminating hazardous gases in underground work, which could have prevented the dangerous gas presence in the sewer pipe where the decedent was working at the time of death. Despite the defendants' motion for a directed verdict being denied, they presented evidence on industry practices regarding safety devices in open sewer construction, which was deemed irrelevant by the trial judge who recognized the case involved underground work. The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence linked to a lack of safety devices; however, they did not renew their motion after presenting their case. The court emphasized that all evidence must be viewed favorably towards the plaintiff, maintaining that reasonable inferences should support the verdict in the claimant's favor, despite the defendants' claims of insufficient evidence regarding safety devices in use.
The referenced legal framework mandates that employers provide reasonable safety devices commonly used in the workplace to protect employees when not specifically mandated by law. Employers can avoid liability for employee injuries by adhering to this statute. Negligence is established if an employer fails to comply when the statute applies. The interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable safety device relies on the employer's judgment, which should prioritize safety over cost. The evidence suggests that safety devices for detecting hazardous gases, known or should have been known to the defendants, were in common use. This supports the jury's decision to address factual disputes, as the trial court acted correctly in allowing the jury to deliberate on these issues, backed by competent evidence. Although concerns were raised about addressing negligence versus statutory recovery, the statute inherently involves negligence through the employer's failure to provide necessary safety measures. The presence of hazards in the workplace informs the necessity for such devices, establishing a clear connection between identified dangers and the requirement for safety devices. Despite conflicting testimonies, no witness was found to have provided false testimony.
Conflicts and inconsistencies in witness testimony may stem from misunderstanding or honest confusion, but it is the jury's role to determine the significance of such inconsistencies and establish the facts. A critical point agreed upon is the existence of a reasonable safety device that could have prevented the accident and saved a man's life. Although the general use of this device was a matter for the jury, evidence indicates it was found in favor of the claimant.
P. W. Martin, General Superintendent of Southern Union Gas Company, testified about the availability and use of a safety device for detecting flammable gases, confirming that it is utilized by many companies in the industry. Martin explained standard procedures for handling situations involving gas leaks, including immediate repairs and venting procedures, and affirmed that safety devices are generally available and can be used by anyone. He confirmed that the Southern Union Gas Company provides such devices to employees working in areas where flammable gas may be present. However, when questioned about whether he was ever asked to bring out the gas indicator for testing prior to the explosion, he stated he could not recall such a request.
Mr. Nohl inquired about the availability of a specific safety indicator for contractors, to which it was clarified that while the indicator can be purchased, it is not easily accessible. It was established that not all sewer line contractors use such an indicator. A defense objection arose regarding the relevance of testimony on the general use of safety devices across industries, as the statute in question encompasses safety devices in general, not limited to sewer line contractors. The court upheld the testimony's relevance, affirming that the inquiry into the use of reasonable safety devices applicable to the decedent's work was pertinent, regardless of the specific nature of the work or whether it was performed by a contractor. The judgment noted that evidence could demonstrate general use of safety devices even if few contractors were engaged in that specific type of work. The defendants contested the admissibility of testimony regarding safety devices in other industries, but the court determined that any potential error in admitting this testimony was not substantial enough to warrant reversal. Consequently, the judgment against the defendants was affirmed, with directions to the trial court to enter a proper judgment and awarding the appellee $750 in attorneys' fees, with costs against the defendants.
