Temple Cotton Oil Co. v. Skinner
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). It is first earnestly insisted that the court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant. In making this contention, counsel claim, that the court should have told the jury as a matter of law, under the evidence introduced, that the plaintiff assumed the risk. This court has so often said that the employee assumes all risks naturally and reasonably incident to the services in which he engages, where the hazards of the service are obvious and within the apprehension of a person of his experience and understanding, that a citation of authority is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Southern Anthracite Coal Co. v. BowenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. GrahamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Garrison Company v. LawsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Reynolds v. AshabrannerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Blytheville v. DoudSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Herring v. BollingerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Kane v. Carper-Dover Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- McEachin v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.