Arrowhead Freight Lines, Limited v. White

• Decision Date: 20 September 1955
• Docket Number: No. 3839,3839
• Citation: 287 P.2d 718,71 Nev. 257
• Parties: ARROWHEAD FREIGHT LINES, Ltd., a corporation, and Jack E. Palsgrove, Appellants, v. James WHITE, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 718

287 P.2d 718

71 Nev. 257

ARROWHEAD FREIGHT LINES, Ltd., a corporation, and Jack E Palsgrove, Appellants, v. James WHITE, Respondent.

No. 3839.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Sept. 20, 1955.

Morse, Graves & Compton, Las Vegas, for appellants.

Foley Brothers, Las Vegas, for respondent.

MERRILL, Chief Justice.

This is an action for damages for negligence. White brought suit against Arrowhead Freight Lines and its employee Palsgrove. After trial the jury's verdict was in favor of the defendants. Upon White's motion a new trial was ordered by the trial court upon the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and that the verdict was against law. From that order for new trial Arrowhead and Palsgrove have appealed.

The law of Nevada regarding such an appeal is well digested in Nevada Rock & Sand Company v. Grich, 59 Nev. 345, 365, 93 P.2d 513, 521. The question is not whether we, as an appellate court, on the record before us would have reversed the jury's verdict as without evidentiary support. The question, rather, is whether upon that record the trial court can be said to have abused its discretion in granting new trial. As stated in Treadway v. Wilder, 9 Nev. 67, 70, 'It must be borne in mind that the nisi prius courts in reviewing the verdict of juries are not subject to the rules that govern appellate courts. They may weigh the evidence and if they think injustice has been done grant a new trial where appellate courts should not or could not interfere.' We must, then, respect not the jury's verdict but the trial court's judgment (that the evidence clearly preponderates against the verdict or that it would result in injustice) unless that judgment is clearly wrong.

With these rules of law in mind we turn to the facts of this case. The issue is as to alleged negligent conduct on the part of Palsgrove in the course of his employment. The trial court was of the view that negligence had been established by a clear preponderance of the evidence.

Appellant Arrowhead had been engaged to haul a truckload of reinforcing steel to a site in Las Vegas where one Davey, as general contractor, was in charge of construction. With appellant Palsgrove as driver the load arrived at the site. It was during the course of the unloading that the accident in question occurred.

The steel rods were loaded on a flat bed semi-trailer in the form of bundles 30 to 40 feet in length, several rods being wired together to form each bundle. The ordinary practice in unloading such bundles of steel is to do so with a crane mounted on the bed of the trailer. A crane had been ordered for this purpose by the general contractor, Davey, but failed to arrive. It was then agreed between Davey and Palsgrove that the steel be unloaded by dragging the bundles off the side of the trailer. For this purpose a pickup truck owned by Davey was used to furnish the necessary power. From its rear a cable was attached to the center of each bundle. As the pickup proceeded away at right angles to the trailer, the bundle was dragged off the side.

It is recognized that an element of danger attaches to this method of unloading bundles of this type. Due to the extremely flexible nature of the steel, it is essential that the cable be precisely centered on the bundles so that they are squarely dragged from the trailer, both ends leaving the bed simultaneously. Should a bundle be dragged off at an angle, the flexible characteristics of the long steel rods would impart a whiplike action to the bundle, rendering it impossible to control.

Five persons were engaged in the unloading process. Appellant Palsgrove stationed himself on the bed of the...