Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 06 May 1912 |
| Citation | Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 147 S.W. 86, 104 Ark. 67 (Ark. 1912) |
| Parties | CHICAGO MILL & LUMBER COMPANY v. JOHNSON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; Frank Smith, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Defendant is a corporation engaged in the sawing and manufacturing of lumber at Blytheville, in Mississippi County, Arkansas. Plaintiff was in its employ. He brought this suit for damages, alleging that while the plaintiff was engaged in the performance of his duties as "tripper," a slab being conveyed by live rollers from the saw to the tripper chain or conveyor, became fastened in the tripper chain, and it was plaintiff's duty to remove the slab and readjust it, and while engaged in the performance of that duty it was the duty of Frank Sherrod, the edgerman, and also of John Young, the off-bearer, to throw the lever and deaden the live rollers and stop their movement to prevent injury to the plaintiff; that, notwithstanding this fact, and knowing the plaintiff's danger, which was to them apparent, they sent a slab or board moving down the live rollers while plaintiff was engaged in the performance of his duty removing the slab that had become fastened in the chain, and that said board or slab moving down the live rollers struck the plaintiff and crushed his arm and wrist.
The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, and set up assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
The general superintendent of the defendant described the mill and machinery where Johnson worked as follows:
The plaintiff describes the manner of his injury as follows
The appellee was asked this question:
Further questions and answers were as follows:
Appellee further testified that the boss showed him when he put him to work how to trip the slabs. He says: "He showed me to pull this rope and trip the slabs, and he said that good plank would come down, and that the off-bearer would show me; and this foot trip that sets over to the right, you use that like this, and he showed me to trip those planks to the trimmer; but this rope trip and foot trip that trips the plank to the trimmer is all he ever showed me how to handle or told me to have anything to do with--the trimmer trip and the slab trip."
Frank Sherrod testified substantially as follows:
The record shows the following:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
F. Kiech Manufacturing Company v. Hopkins
...98; 62 Ark. 70; 36 Ia. 472; 41 S.W. 445; 92 Mo.App. 221. 3. The seventh instruction should have been modified as requested by appellant. 147 S.W. 86. 4. The cause should be reversed for prejudicial language of plaintiff's counsel in his closing argument. The court failed to rule on appellan......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Rodgers
...the giving of the latter amounts to a specific objection to the former. 229 U.S. 114; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 117 Ark. 41; 104 Ark. 67. 4. the fourth instruction given for plaintiff, the court erred in charging the jury that they might consider as one of the elements of damage"......
-
Long v. Lampton
...the court to give instructions which are directly conflicting and calculated to mislead the jury. See also Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 104 Ark. 67, 147 S.W. 86 (1912); McCurry v. Hawkins, 83 Ark. 202, 103 S.W. 600 (1907); St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Beecher, 65 Ark. 64, 44 S.W. ......
-
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Lane
...required in the work, then his fellow servants were not charged with any duty of protecting him by giving signals before moving the car. 104 Ark. 67; 1 Roberts, Liabilities of Carriers, 959; 240 U.S. 444; 60 L.Ed. 732; 124 Ark. 431. The court erred in giving instruction No. 1, as requested ......