C. J. Horner, Inc. v. Moore, CA
| Decision Date | 16 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 597 S.W.2d 857,268 Ark. 1019 |
| Parties | , 8 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1688, 1980 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 24,804 C. J. HORNER, INC., Appellant, v. Billy MOORE, Appellee. 79-252. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, Little Rock, for appellant.
George D. Ellis, Bryant, for appellee.
At the request of appellee, a concrete finisher, the trial judge gave the following instruction in appellee's action for damages for personal injuries sustained when the "pouring chute", attached to the rear of appellant's ready-mix cement truck, struck appellee, who was constructing a cement driveway, as the truck moved first backward and then forward, without prior warning from either a mechanical alarm system or the aid of a signalman:
"There was in force in the state of Arkansas at the time of the occurrence a regulation which provided:
No employer shall use any motor vehicle that operates within an off-highway job site not open to public traffic and having an obstructed view to the rear, unless
(a) The vehicle has a reverse signal alarm audible above the surrounding noise level, or
(b) The vehicle is backed up only when an observer signals that it is safe to do so.
A violation of this regulation, although not necessarily negligence, is evidence of negligence to be considered by you along with all the other facts and circumstances in the case. " 1
It is undisputed that appellant's ready-mix cement truck had an obstructed view to the rear; and the truck did not have an alarm system, nor was there a signalman on duty to aid the driver in moving the vehicle safely.
For reversal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving plaintiff's requested instruction number 14 and, therefore, the jury's verdict of $27,500.00 in behalf of appellee cannot stand. The thrust of appellant's argument may be summarized as: The specific regulation upon which appellee's requested instruction is predicated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.601(a)(b)(4) does not apply to a ready-mix cement truck which operates on the public streets and highways as opposed to a motor vehicle that operates "exclusively on off-highway job sites not open to public traffic . . . e. g., bull-dozers, fork-lifts used in warehouse storage, portable cranes, and the like."
Section 1926.601, in relevant part, provides:
(a) Coverage. Motor vehicles as covered by this part are those vehicles that operate within an off-highway jobsite, not open to public traffic. The requirements of this section do not apply to equipment for which rules are prescribed in § 1926.602. 2
(b) General requirements. (1) All vehicles shall have a service brake system, an emergency brake system, and a parking brake system. These systems may use common components, and shall be maintained in operable condition.
(2)(i) Whenever visibility conditions warrant additional light, all vehicles, or combinations of vehicles, in use shall be equipped with at least two headlights and two taillights in operable condition.
(ii) All vehicles or combination of vehicles, shall have brake lights in operable condition regardless of light conditions.
(4) No employer shall use any motor vehicle equipment having an obstructed view to the rear unless :
(i) The vehicle has a reverse signal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Piper v. US
...considered with other facts and circumstances. Dunn v. Brimer, 259 Ark. 855, 537 S.W.2d 164 (1976). See also, C.J. Horner, Inc. v. Moore, 268 Ark. 1019, 597 S.W.2d 857 (App.1980); J.L. Wilson Farms, Inc. v. Wallace, 267 Ark. 643, 590 S.W.2d 42 10. From the factual findings it is clear that ......
-
Bishop v. Tariq, Inc.
...Mr. Bishop's death more probable. The violation of a government regulation is evidence of negligence. See C.J. Horner, Inc. v. Moore, 268 Ark. 1019, 597 S.W.2d 857 (Ark.App.1980). Further, as the trial court recognized, the purpose of a lifeline is to demarcate the shallow and deep ends of ......