A. J. Neimeyer Lumber Co. v. Brame
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; 1. The testimony wholly fails to establish any actionable negligence on part of defendant. 2. All of the instructions given contain reversible errors. Facts not proved are assumed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; 1. The testimony wholly fails to establish any actionable negligence on part of defendant. 2. All of the instructions given contain reversible errors. Facts not proved are assumed. Some are abstract and ignore the defense of assumed risk. 104 Ark. 236-245;. 58 Id. 228; 78 Id. 381; 97 Id. 180; 90 Id. 107; 116 Id. 284-291; 101 Id. 537-543; 105 Id. 209; 99 Id. 385, etc. 3. Irrelevant testimony was admitted. 90 Ark. 107; 105 Id. 209; 198 S. W. 120. The evidence shows negligence. There is no error in the instructions. The law is well settled by…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The plaintiff, Simon Brame, asserts that he was employed by the defendant, A. J. Neimeyer Lumber Company, to work in the latter’s lumber mill near Little Bock, and that while performing service in the course of the employment he received personal injuries caused by the negligence of defendant, and he instituted this action by next friend against the defendant to recover compensation for his injuries.
The defendant, in its answer, denied that the plaintiff was in its employment at the time of his injury or that there was any negligence on the part of the com- - pany which caused or contributed…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Alvis v. HolbertCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Holbert v. SlaughterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956