Barrentine v. Henry Wrape Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 147 |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 328,120 Ark. 206 |
| Parties | BARRENTINE v. THE HENRY WRAPE COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
J. N Rachels, John E. Miller and W. H. Yarnell, Jr., for appellant.
The court erred in directing the verdict. 105 Ark. 485.
Brundidge & Neelly, for appellee.
The directed verdict was right. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the employee who threw the stone was, at the time, under the control of appellee, or that he was acting within the scope of his employment. 105 Ark. 487.
This appeal is from a directed verdict, and this is the second suit for damages for personal injury, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of appellee in failing to exercise ordinary care to protect appellant while upon its premises and in its plant as he was returning to his work. After going to dinner on the day of the injury, he was returning to resume work at his place, and when within a few feet of his place of employment, and shortly before the hour to begin some of the other employees, who had engaged in a sham battle with rocks upon the grounds, threw a stone which struck him in the eye and put it out.
On the first appeal, the complaint was held insufficient upon demurrer, and the law relating to the liability was declared. Barrentine v. The Henry Wrape Co., 105 Ark. 485, 152 S.W. 158. It was there said:
The testimony tends to show that appellant was not engaged in the rock throwing which many of the other employees indulged in for diversion during the noon hour as he was returning to the machine where he worked, and immediately before the time to begin he was struck by a stone or missile, thrown by some of the others, inflicting the injury complained of, and also that it was known to the master that the employees indulged in such practice, and the superintendent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Members Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blissett
...of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it is error for the court to take the case from the jury. See Barrentine v. Henry Wrape Company, 120 Ark. 206, 179 S.W. 328, and cases cited therein. Also, in Smith v. McEachin, 186 Ark. 1132, 57 S.W.2d 1043, we '. . . In testing whether or......
-
Mantle Lamp Company v. Read
...a substantial conflict in the testimony. 38 Cyc. 1540; 96 Ark. 368; 39 Ark. 491; 37 Ark. 164; Id. 230; Id. 580; 35 Ark. 146; 36 Ark. 451; 120 Ark. 206; 115 Ark. 166; 23 Ark. 115; 99 Ark. 490; 85 390. MCCULLOCH, C. J. WOOD and HUMPHREYS, JJ., dissent OPINION MCCULLOCH, C. J. This action was ......
-
Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company v. Montgomery
...Different conclusions might have been drawn from the evidence adduced, and it was proper to submit same to the jury. 76 Ark. 88. See also 120 Ark. 206; 140 Ark. 356. The agent of appellant owed to appellee the duty to disclose such facts as were peculiarly in his possession, and not to do s......
-
Wood v. Brown
...as the Trial Court was required to do in passing on the motion. Guenther v. Guenther, 222 Ark. 278, 258 S.W.2d 562; Barrentine v. Henry Wrape Co., 120 Ark. 206, 179 S.W. 328. The gravamen of the charge in said Paragraph 5 is that Jones Horne, one of the judges in said Ward 2, Box 2, placed ......