Newport Stave Co. v. Hall
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; George W. Hays, Judge; 1. Considering the evidence in its aspect most favorable to appellee, the proof is not legally sufficient to show negligence. 97 Ark. 486; 35 Id. 602. Defendant was only bound to use ordinary care to prevent the injury. 6 Words & Phr. 5029; 11 L. R. A. 689; 26 Am. St. 842; 14 Pac. 633; 59 S. W. 13. 2. This was purely an accident. 1 Words & Phr. 63; 63 L. R. A. 416; 50 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; George W. Hays, Judge; 1. Considering the evidence in its aspect most favorable to appellee, the proof is not legally sufficient to show negligence. 97 Ark. 486; 35 Id. 602. Defendant was only bound to use ordinary care to prevent the injury. 6 Words & Phr. 5029; 11 L. R. A. 689; 26 Am. St. 842; 14 Pac. 633; 59 S. W. 13. 2. This was purely an accident. 1 Words & Phr. 63; 63 L. R. A. 416; 50 Am. Rep. 352; 27 L. R. A. 365. 3. Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. 82 Ark. 534, 97 Id. 486.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The plaintiff was scalded by water expelled from a steam pipe at defendant’s mill, and sues to recover damages. Defendant was operating a stave mill, and used an engine and boiler leased from John P. Holmes, plaintiff’s employer. Holmes contracted with defendant to supply the boiler with sufficient water, and he assigned that duty to plaintiff, whose other work for Holmes was to superintend the making and hauling of stave bolts, the business in which Holmes was then engaged. On the morning the injury occurred, the plaintiff went to the mill to ask Kinard, the engineer (defendant’s employee)…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dowell v. SchislerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by1 opinion
- Graham and Seaman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938