Burdette Cooperage Co. v. Bunting
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Osceola District ; W. J. Driver, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The Burdette Cooperage Company, for the purpose of lifting, loading and otherwise handling logs at its plant, used a derrick, two of the principal parts consisting of a mast pole and a boom pole.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Osceola District ; W. J. Driver, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The Burdette Cooperage Company, for the purpose of lifting, loading and otherwise handling logs at its plant, used a derrick, two of the principal parts consisting of a mast pole and a boom pole. The mast pole was forty-two feet long, and was intended to stand in a perpendicular position, and to be held in such position by guy wires, one end of which was fastened to trees, stumps, or what is known as “dead men,” and the other end was attached to a wrought iron or steel cap or plate on the…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). 1. The court did not err in refusing to direct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the appellant. It was a question for the jury, under the evidence, as to whether or not the appellant had exercised ordinary care to provide its servant Bunting with reasonably safe appliances with which to perform the work in which he was engaged at the time of his injury. The testimony of appellant’s millwright, who constructed the derrick, was to the effect that he used the usual material in the construction of the same and constructed the same in the usual manner…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. ShannonIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad v. BeckerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Marcum v. Three States Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. FredericksIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Bunyan v. LoftusSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sterling Stores, Inc. v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965