In the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia
Quinton L. Hutchinson’s Administrator
vs
Cabin Branch Mining Company
In The Circuit Court of Prince William County, Virginia
Climenia Hutchinson
Administratrix of Quinton L. Hutchinson, deceased.
Vs
Cabin Branch Mining Company
DECLARATION
The plaintiff, Climenia Hutchinson, administratrix of the goods and chattels of Quinton L. Hutchinson, deceased, complains of the Cabin Branch Mining Company, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, of a plea of trespass on the case for this, to –wit:
There heretofore and at the time of committing the grievances hereinafter mentioned the said defendant was the owner and proprietor of a certain mine in the County of Prince William and State of Virginia aforesaid, which mine the said defendant was then and there working, operating and taking minerals therefrom and being such owner, proprietor and operator of the mine aforesaid, heretofore, to-wit; on the 3rd day of March, 1909, the said Quinton L. Hutchinson, plaintiff’s intestate, at the special instance and request of the said defendant company, became and the hired servant and workman of said defendant company and was then and there employed by the said defendant company as its workman and servant in operating said mine and in mining and getting out mineral matter from the said mine for the defendant company, and for which services plaintiff’s intestate was paid certain wages by the defendant company. And the plaintiff says that while her said intestate was the hired workman and servant of the defendant, in and about the work aforesaid, it became and was the duty of the said defendant company to use due, reasonable and ordinary care for the said plaintiff’s intestate while he was so employed and working in said mine, and also it became and was the duty of the said defendant to use reasonable skill and care for the safety of the said Quinton L. Hutchinson while engaged in operating and working said mine in the employment of the defendant as aforesaid.
Yet the said defendant, not regarding its duty did not use due and ordinary care for the safety of the said Quinton L. Hutchinson while so engaged in working in said mine and did not operate said mine with reasonable safety and ordinary care as it could and might have done so that said Quinton L. Hutchinson could work therein with reasonable safety in the employment of the said defendant company, but wholly neglected so to do and wrongfully and negligently permitted large stones and masses of mineral, slate and earth to hang loosely in and about said mine and in and the sides of certain shafts, slopes, galleries and inclines in and about said mine at the point where the said Quinton L. Hutchinson was at work for the defendant company and at the point where he was assigned to work by the said defendant and then and there wrongfully and negligently failed to provide the said mine and the roofing thereof with sufficient props and stays to keep stone, minerals and earth that hung loosely in and about said mine and the top and sides and the shafts, slopes, galleries and inclines from falling in and upon said Quinton L. Hutchinson while engaged at such work for and in the service of the defendant company as aforesaid and then and there negligently employed, and kept in its service to manage, control and operate said mine, incompetent and inexperienced agents and by means whereof and while the plaintiff’s intestate was engaged in the work and service of the defendant company, a large and ponderous mass of stone, slate, mineral and earth fell from the side of the said mine and in and upon said plaintiff’s intestate, without any negligence or fault on the part of said plaintiff’s intestate, and by such falling in of said stone, slate, mineral and earth so negligently permitted to hang loosely in and about said mine and the sides thereof, the said Quinton L. Hutchinson, plaintiff’s intestate, was injured and crushed about the body, back and hips and so injured that he died shortly thereafter, to-wit; on the day and year aforesaid, from the effects of said injury and plaintiff further says that the said Quinton L. Hutchinson left surviving him a widow, Climenia Hutchinson, and one infant child who, by reason of the negligence and wrongful act of the defendant company aforesaid and the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, suffered great loss and damage and have been deprived of the love, affection, support, maintance and benefits which they would otherwise have received during the life time of said plaintiff’s intestate and will continue to suffer great loss to a large amount, to-wit; the sum of $10,000.00
And for this also, to-wit; that heretofore, to-wit; on the 3rd day of March, 1909, that said defendant company was the owner and proprietor of a certain mine in the County of Prince William, in the State of Virginia, which the said defendant was then and there working and operating and taking mineral there from and heretofore, to wit; on the 3rd day of March, 1909, aforesaid the said Quinton L. Hutchinson at the special instance and request of the said defendant became and was the hired servant and workman of the said defendant company and was employed in operating said mine for which services the plaintiff’s intestate, the said Quinton L. Hutchinson, was paid certain wages by the said defendant company and the plaintiff’s intestate further states that while he, the said Quinton L. Hutchinson, was the hired workman and servant of the said defendant company in and about the work aforesaid it became and was the duty of the said defendant company to use due, reasonable and ordinary care for the said plaintiff’s intestate further states that while he, the said Quinton L. Hutchinson, was the hired workman and servant of the said defendant company in and about the work aforesaid it became and was the duty of the said defendant company to use due, reasonable and ordinary care for the said plaintiff’s intestate while he was so employed in working in said mine and also it became and was the duty of the said defendant to use reasonable skill and care for the safety of the said plaintiff’s intestate while engaged in operating and working in said mine in the employment of the defendant company as aforesaid.
Yet the said defendant company, not regarding its duty in that behalf did not use the proper care for the safety of said plaintiff’s intestate while so engaged in working in said mine and did not operate said mine with such reasonable safety and ordinary care as it might have done or which by law it was required to do so that plaintiff’s intestate could work therein with reasonable safety in the employment of said defendant company, but wholly neglected so to do and wrongfully and negligently permitted large masses of stone, slate, mineral and earth to hang loosely in and about said mine and in and about the sides and slopes thereof at the point where the said Quinton L. Hutchinson was at work for the defendant company and where he was assigned to work by said defendant company, although said defendant company well knew or should have known that said masses of stone, slate, mineral and earth were hanging loosely in said mine and on the sides thereof as aforesaid and were a danger and menace to the said Quinton L. Hutchinson and then and there wrongfully and negligently failed to provide the said mine and the roofing of the said mine with sufficient props and stays to keep stone, minerals and earth that hung loosely in and about said mine and the top and sides and the shafts, slopes, galleries and inclines from falling in and upon said Quinton L. Hutchinson while engaged at such work for and in the service of the defendant company as aforesaid and then and there negligently employed, and kept in its service to manage, control and operate said mine, incompetent and inexperienced agents and by means were of and while the plaintiff’s intestate was engaged in the work and service of the defendant company, a large and ponderous mass of stone, slate, mineral and earth fell from the side of said mine and in and upon said plaintiff’s intestate, without any negligence or fault on the part of the said plaintiff’s intestate, and by such falling in of said stone, slate, mineral and earth so negligently permitted to hang loosely in and about said mine and the sides thereof, the said Quinton L. Hutchinson, plaintiff’s intestate was injured and crushed about the body, back and hips and so injured that he died shortly thereafter, to-wit; on the day and year aforesaid, from the effects of said injury and plaintiff further says that the said Quinton L. Hutchinson left surviving him a widow Climenia Hutchinson, and one child who, by reason of the negligence and wrongful act of the defendant company aforesaid and the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, suffered great loss and damage and have been deprived of the love, affection, support, maintenance and benefits which they would otherwise have received during the life time of said plaintiff’s intestate and will continue to suffer great loss to a large amount, to-wit; the sum of $10,000.00, by means whereof the plaintiff has sustained damages to the amount of $10,000.00. Therefore she brings this suite.
Moncure & Tebbs
In the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia
Quinton L. Hutchinson’s Administrator
Vs
Cabin Branch Mining Company
Manassas, Virginia
November 9, 1909
Before
Hon. J. B. T. Thornton and a jury
Appearances:
On behalf of the plaintiff, Messrs. Moncure, Tebbs, and A. R. Colvin, Esq.
On behalf of the defendant, J. S. Barbour, Esq., and H. T. Davies, Esq.
The jury having been empanelled, Mr. Moncure made the opening statement on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Barbour on behalf of the defendant. On motion of counsel for the plaintiff all witnesses were excluded from the court room.
Whereupon Dr. F. C. Pratt, a witness called by and on behalf of the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination – by Mr. Moncure:
(Q.) Doctor, kindly state to the jury your full name? (A.) Frank C. Pratt.
(Q.) Your residence, Doctor? (A.) Fredericksburg.
(Q.) And your profession? (A.) Physician.
(Q.) How long, doctor, have you been practicing medicine? (A.) Two years and a half.
(Q.) Doctor, on or about the 5th of March last were you called to Dumfries? (A.) Yes, 4th of March.
(Q.) On the 4th day of March, you were called to Dumfries to make a post-mortem examination of the body of Quinton L. Hutchison? (A.) Yes sir.
(Q.) Did you make that examination? (A.) Yes sir.
(Q.) Was there any other physician present with you? (A.) Doctor Cline
(Q.) Of Dumfries? (A.) Yes sir.
(Q.) Doctor, will you tell the jury what you found upon that examination, sir? (A.) Well, we didn’t make a complete post mortem, we just endeavored to find the exact cause of death, and we found that death was due to internal hemorrhage produced by some pressure from without, rupturing some blood vessel. What blood vessel was ruptured we could not determine.
(Q.) Now Doctor, indicate to the jury, if you will please, what mark or marks there were on the body to indicate pressure from without, and where? (A.) There were few bruises on the body considering the condition we found inside, but there was one bruise, the whole abdomen was bruised right across the pit of the stomach, right under the ribs, and then there was a slight bruise on the back right over the spinal column. We also found one or two of the segments of the spinal column displaced.
(Q.) The condition you found the spinal column in, would that have been sufficient to have caused death? (A.) I don’t think it would have produced instant death.
(Q.) Instant death. The rupture of the blood vessel that you mentioned would that cause instant death? (A.) Well, it would cause death in a very few minutes.
(Q.) Would great pressure here (indicating) sufficient to have displaced the segments of the spinal column ordinarily cause a repute of the internal blood vessel? (A.) Yes I believe so.
(Q.) Then in this case you say that death was due, from your examination, to the rupture of a blood vessel caused by pressure? (A.) Yes sir.
(Q.) Upon that portion of the body? (A.) Yes sir.
(Q.) Did you find any ribs broken, Doctor? (A.) No sir.
(Q.) The pressure, as I understand, was below the ribs? (A.) Below the ribs, what is known as the pit of the stomach.
CROSS EXAMINATION – by Mr. Barbour
(Q.) There were no bones broken? (A.) No fractures of the bones anywhere that we could determine.
(Q.) Was the skin broken at all? (A.) No sir.
(Q.) At whose instance did you go there, Doctor? (A.) What do you say?
(Q.) At whose instance were you called there? (A.) I went there for another physician in Fredericksburg, Doctor Scott. He was called by someone in Dumfries, and he was sick, and asked me to take his place.
Mr. Barbour: That is all. (witness excused)
Whereupon - J. CLARENCE WILLIAMS (colored) a witness called by and on behalf of the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION – By Mr. Moncure:
(Q.) William, give the jury your full name, please? (A.) James Clarence Williams
(Q.) And where do you live? (A.) Well, Dumfries is as close as I could get at it.
(Q.) You live close to Dumfries? (A.) Yes sir; I always call Dumfries for home.
(Q.) What is your age, William? (A.) Well, sir, I was 36 years old the 24th of last June.
(Q.) And have you lived in or near Dumfries all your life? (A.) Yes sir; all my life. I was born and raised right there.