Chiles v. Fort Smith Commission Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The complaint alleges a good cause of action by alleging negligence in general terms and that with the known facts as set out in the complaint, they could have introduced expert evidence sufficient for a recovery without alleging and proving the specific acts of negligence. 29 Cyc. 628; 19 Id. 15, § 4; 107 Cal. 549; 40 Pac. 1020; 48 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The complaint alleges a good cause of action by alleging negligence in general terms and that with the known facts as set out in the complaint, they could have introduced expert evidence sufficient for a recovery without alleging and proving the specific acts of negligence. 29 Cyc. 628; 19 Id. 15, § 4; 107 Cal. 549; 40 Pac. 1020; 48 Am. St. Rep. 146; 29 L. R. A. 718. 2. Res ipsa loquitur rule does not apply here. 29 Cyc. 591-2. The relation of master and servant does not exist here. The deceased owed appellee no…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellants are the widow and children of J. C. Chiles, and brought this suit as such to compensate the loss sustained by them in the death of their intestate. For their cause of action the following facts are alleged: That the defendants were conducting a mercantile business at No. 119 Rogers avenue in the city of Fort Smith in a four-story brick building, of which they had joint control and management. Other allegations of the complaint are as follows:
“That said defendants were in joint control of all of the pipes, pumps, tanks, machinery and all • other appliances that were used by…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Stewart v. Carpet Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Wood v. Drainage District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. BruceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Stewart v. . Carpet Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Jacks v. ReevesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Maki v. Murray HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Carter Oil Co. v. Independent Torpedo Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Okmulgee Gas Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Delta Oxygen Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.