Legal Opinion

Crawford v. Cox Planing Mill & Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 2, 1964No. 5-3360PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Frank Holt, Associate Justice.

The trial court sustained appellees’ demurrers to the appellants’ amended complaint. On appeal the only issue is whether appellants ’ amended complaint stated a-cause of action under the doctrine of attractive nuisance.

The appellant alleged that the “minor” child [no age stated] was injured when he fell from an unguarded scaffold while playing the game of hide-and-seek on a Sunday afternoon in a construction area on public school grounds where no warning signs or barricades of any nature existed. The plaintiff’s complaint further stated:

“The unfinished walls of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Arkansas Valley Trust Co. v. McIlroySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  2. Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
  3. Jones v. ComerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  4. Foster v. LuskSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  5. Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. KilpatrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1971
  2. Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Mikkelson v. RisoviNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Bloodworth v. Stuart Ex Rel. StuartTennessee Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Bloodworth v. Stuart Ex Rel. StuartTennessee Supreme Court · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API