Barrentine v. Henry Wrape Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1912
• Citation: 152 S.W. 158,105 Ark. 485
• Parties: BARRENTINE v. HENRY WRAPE COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

152 S.W. 158

105 Ark. 485

BARRENTINE v. HENRY WRAPE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 16, 1912

Appeal from White Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. N Rachels, for appellant.

1. A master must exercise ordinary care to furnish his servant a reasonably safe place to work. 98 Ark. 34; 97 Ark. 180; 95 Ark. 477; 92 Ark. 138; Id. 350.

It is also his duty to exercise the same care to furnish a reasonably safe place of entry and exit to and from his work especially where this entry and exit is over the master's own premises. 98 Ark. 259; 85 Ark. 503.

2. If the master knows of habits and practices of his employees which are dangerous to others and fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent such practices, he will be guilty of negligence for failing to exercise such care. 199 N.Y 388; 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1038; 168 U.S. 135; Shearman & Redfield, Negligence (5 ed.), § 141; 28 N.Y.S. 53; 148 N.Y. 752; 43 N.E. 990.

S. Brundidge, for appellee.

No cause of action is stated. The master is responsible only for such torts of his servants as are committed in the course of his employment and for the master's benefit. 77 Ark. 608; 33 Neb. 582; 96 Ark. 365; 58 Ark. 387; 75 Ark. 585; 67 Ark. 112; 131 F. 161.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellant instituted this action against appellee in the circuit court of White County to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while he was employed by appellee to work at its stave-mill near Searcy, Arkansas. He alleges that other employees were throwing stones and other missiles, and that, while he was returning from his home to his place of work during the noon hour, one of the missiles struck him in the eye and inflicted a serious injury. The paragraph of the complaint setting forth the alleged acts of negligence and the manner in which the injury was inflicted reads as follows:

"That on the 31st day of October, 1911, and for many days prior thereto the defendant company allowed its hands, servants, and employees to engage in throwing rocks, coal, sticks, chunks and other dangerous missiles about its plant and upon the yards, and that at the noon hour on the 31st day of October, 1911, while the plaintiff, James W. Barrentine, was returning from his home to re-engage at work, he, being one of the employees of the defendant, was struck by a rock thrown by one of the servants of the defendant company in the left eye. That the lick received upon the left eye by the rock from the hand of the servant of the defendant company was because of the wilful disregard of the plaintiff's rights and safety by the defendant company. That the defendant company had many times been warned that the throwing of rocks, coal, chunks, sticks and other missiles was dangerous, and that if they did not stop it some one would receive a severe and painful and probably fatal blow sooner or later. That the defendant company had many times promised to stop such conduct, and had expressed itself as knowing that such conduct was dangerous, and that it would sooner or later bring painful affliction to some member of its crew."

The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that facts were not stated therein sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, appellant declining to plead further, the complaint was dismissed.

Appellant insists that he has set forth a cause of action in stating that he was injured by reason of the course of wilful or negligent conduct on the part of other employees which was known to appellee, and which it promised to restrain or prevent, but failed to do so. He invokes the rule established by some of the authorities that "the master may be considered in such case guilty, not of the wrongful act itself, but only of neglect to restrain his servants from doing it." Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, § 141; Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. R. Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 135, 42 L.Ed. 411, 18 S.Ct. 35; Hogle v. H. H. Franklin Mfg. Co., 199 N.Y. 388, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1038, 92 N.E. 794; Swinarton v. Le Boutillier, 148 N.Y. 752, 43 N.E. 990; Dean v. Depot Co., (Minn.) 41 Minn. 360, 43 N.W. 54.

In order to bring the case within the operation of...