Legal Opinion

Covington v. Little Fay Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 4, 1929PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The modification complained of by the plaintiff in instruction No. 1 is shown 'by the brackets as the instruction is copied in our statement of facts. The first modification consists in the addition of the words in the brackets, “to exercise ordinary care, ’ ’ in defining the duty of the defendant to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe ladder. There was no error in this. It is well settled that a master is only required to exercise ordinary care to supply a safe place for the use of his servants, and in the discharge of his duty is bound to exercise…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Collins v. MackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
  2. Meeks v. Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  3. Texas Pipe Line Company v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  4. Jefferson v. SouterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  5. Sun Oil Company v. HedgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Turner v. Hot Springs Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  2. Vogler v. O'NEALSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
  3. Book v. DatemaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
  4. Harbor v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
  5. Carroll v. LanzaDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1953

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

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

Powered by the Exa API