Spadra Coal Co. v. White

4 Citing cases

  1. Kane v. Carper-Dover Mercantile Co.

    206 Ark. 674 (Ark. 1944)   Cited 17 times

    The one objection argued by appellant to the plaintiff's instruction No. 1 is that the instruction ignores the defense of the contributory negligence, and concludes by telling the jury to return verdict for the plaintiff. In other words, appellant invokes the rule announced in Temple Cotton Oil Co. v. Skinner, 176 Ark. 17, 2 S.W.2d 676, and adhered to in McMahon v. McNabb, 186 Ark. 831, 56 S.W.2d 422; McEachin v. Martin, 193 Ark. 787, 102 S.W.2d 864; Spadra Coal Co. v. White, 188 Ark. 568, 66 S.W.2d 1072, and many other cases. We are not modifying or weakening in any way the decision on this point as stated in those cases; but the instruction in the case at bar does not violate the rule announced in those cases.

  2. Berry Asphalt Co. v. Kidd

    200 Ark. 1121 (Ark. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    Here, the testimony supported the finding that the place in which the servant was required to perform his duties was rendered unsafe because the servant had not been furnished goggles or other protection which would have made his work reasonably safe. Appellant cites cases like Spadra Coal Co. v. White, 188 Ark. 568, 66 S.W.2d 1072, upholding and quoting from the opinion of this court in the case of Fort Smith. Spadra Mining Co. v. Shirley, 178 Ark. 1007, 13 S.W.2d 14, in which judgments were reversed because the instructions imposed upon the master the duty of furnishing the servant a safe place in which, and safe appliances with which, to work, thereby making the master an insurer, instead of requiring only that he exercise ordinary care in those respects. In our opinion, instruction numbered 1, above quoted, is not open to this objection, especially so in the absence of a specific objection.

  3. The Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Foster

    122 S.W.2d 165 (Ark. 1938)   Cited 11 times
    In The Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Foster, 197 Ark. 232, 242, 122 S.W.2d 165 (1938), the court said that many questions and answers about the pain and suffering caused by injuries are "unnecessary attempts at proof of facts known by everyone who understands the extent of injuries."

    In this case the jury might find there was negligence and still find for the defendant on the ground of assumed risk. The two instructions Nos. 2 and 7 are not in conflict and do not place upon any employer an undue burden as in Ft. Smith-Spadra Mining Co. v. Shirley, 178 Ark. 1007, 13 S.W.2d 14, or Spadra Coal Co. v. White, 188 Ark. 568, 66 S.W.2d 1072. In that respect this instruction differs from the authorities cited by appellant in regard to the defense as suggested. The case is differentiated from such cases as Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. White, 188 Ark. 361, 66 S.W.2d 642.

  4. McEachin v. Martin

    193 Ark. 787 (Ark. 1937)   Cited 12 times
    In McEachin v. Martin, 193 Ark. 787, 102 S.W.2d 864, it was said: "... the well established rule of construction should be kept in mind that legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless obviously so, and that all reasonable doubt upon the subject must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislation."

    After reviewing this conflict, Chief Justice HART there said: "The result of our views is that it is established as a settled law of this state by the decision in Garrison Co. v. Lawson, 171 Ark. 1122, 287 S.W. 396, and Natural Gas Fuel Co. v. Lyles, 174 Ark. 146, 294 S.W. 395, that all instruction is inherently erroneous, and therefore prejudicial, which leaves out of consideration the plaintiff's contributory negligence or his assumption of risk, and leaves to the jury the determination of the defendant's conduct, as the sole issue of the jury's verdict, by concluding with the phrase, `you will find for the plaintiff,' since, under the evidence, the conduct of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant is essential to a proper verdict." That holding was expressly reaffirmed in the case of Spadra Coal Co. v. White, 188 Ark. 568, 66 S.W.2d 1072. But, if this were not the rule which we stated would hereafter be followed as the settled law of this state, instruction numbered 2 did not cure the error appearing in instruction numbered 1. This instruction numbered 2 does not tell the jury that all injury resulting from a risk of danger assumed by the servant would prevent a recovery.