Bolen-Darnell Coal Co. v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. In the light -of the facts disclosed in evidence of the physical surroundings, that it was broad daylight and that any one passing along the path could see the hole, no human foresight could have anticipated an accident. There was therefore no negligence on the part of appellant on which appellee could predicate a right to recover. 2. Appellee wias guilty of contributory negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. In the light -of the facts disclosed in evidence of the physical surroundings, that it was broad daylight and that any one passing along the path could see the hole, no human foresight could have anticipated an accident. There was therefore no negligence on the part of appellant on which appellee could predicate a right to recover. 2. Appellee wias guilty of contributory negligence. The sidewalk or path was known to her to be rough and washed out, and it was her duty to use her senses, especially that of sight, in…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCuuloch, C. J.
The plaintiffs, Will Rogers and his wife, Ewing Rogers, joined in an action against the Bolen-Darnell Coal Company to recover damages sustained by reason of personal injuries of the wife which resulted from falling into a hole dug in the street of the town of Hartford, Arkansas, by servants of said defendant, for the purpose of setting a pole. The defendant operates an electric light plant under a franchise granted by the town council, and the new pole was to be set to' replace an old one used in supporting the wires which carried the electric current. Negligence of defendant is charged in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McQuillan v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Wheeler v. Town of WestportWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- McCormack v. RobinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- Barry v. TerkildsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Crites v. City of New RichmondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. PriceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916