Gaines v. Bard

Decision Date13 May 1893
Citation22 S.W. 570,57 Ark. 615
PartiesGAINES v. BARD
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Garland Circuit Court, ALEXANDER M. DUFFIE, Judge.

Bard recovered judgment against Gaines and another, proprietors in part of the "Old Hale Bath House," a public bath-house in the city of Hot Springs, for injury from a burn which he claimed to have received, through the negligence of defendant's servant, while taking a vapor bath. The defenses to the action were that the injury was occasioned by plaintiff's negligence; that the was not guilty of negligence; but that if he was negligent, he was not defendants', but plaintiff's, servant.

Plaintiff testified as follows: "I came here in April, 1891, to take the hot baths and also medical treatment for my disease paralysis of the legs, with which I have suffered twenty-four years. I employed Dr. C. S. Reid as my physician, and he prescribed for me to take my baths at the Old Hale Bath House, which was owned by the defendants and others. I went there and bought a ticket from Williams, the clerk and superintendent, for $ 7, of which I understood $ 4 was for the ticket and $ 3 for the attendant. He wrote the name "John" on the face of the ticket, and told me that John Martin, who was standing near by, would show me the bath and attend to me. I followed this John into the back part of the building where the hot rooms were, and he prepared the hot water bath in one of them, and I bathed there. I took one of the twenty-one baths, for which the ticket called, daily. When I would come for a bath, Williams would take my ticket punch it and give me a single bath ticket with the name John written on it, and I would take it back in the bathing department to John, and he would prepare the bath for me. My physician told me to take the baths at a temperature of 96 degrees, and I so instructed John. I could not well get in and out of the bath alone, and John would assist me. When this ticket was used up, I bought another at the same price from Williams, and he wrote the name John across the face of it. I continued to bathe on in the same way until in June when I told Dr. Reid I was not perspiring enough, and he told me to take the vapor. After I had taken two or three full vapor baths I told him I could not stand it, and he told me to take knee or leg vapors merely, which I commenced doing. These were taken by sitting outside the vapor box and putting my legs through an oblong hole into the vapor box, with towels wrapped about the knees to prevent the escape of the vapor. I took about ten baths in this way."

"On the 23d of June he put my legs into the vapor, wrapped the towels about them, and, leaving, said he would be back soon and if I needed him to call, and I told him he could go and I would call when I needed him. Immediately after he was gone I felt something burning my leg on the top, between the knee and ankle, and I moved it about to get it out of the way, but it continued to burn. I commenced trying to take it out of the vapor and called John, telling him to come on, that I was burning up. He said all right, and I think I heard him laugh. He did not come until I had got my legs out, which took me about five minutes; they were in the vapor about five minutes. I told him to go and put some cold water into the bath tub, that my leg was burned. He did so, and I got into it and commenced rubbing my legs, and the skin from the burn commenced rising to the top. I got out, went to my room and sent for Dr. Reid. He gave me some salve, which would ease it for a while. I suffered a great deal from it, night and day was confined to my room two or three months and unable to earn anything. I was paying $ 4 a week for board, which before the burn I was able to earn by selling books. The hole was oblong, and just large enough to receive both legs. I have thought over this matter a good deal, and have never been able to tell how I got burned in there. I looked in, but it was so dark that I could see nothing. The burn was about six inches long and about half way between the knee and ankle. John always opened the vapor bath for me and helped me to put my legs into it, and when I wanted to get out I would call him. I was never burnt in the vapor before. I always bathed in this same vapor. My legs had been in it for about a minute before I felt the burning sensation. I usually took knee vapors for from three to five minutes. I neither employed nor paid John Martin. Williams pointed to him and said, 'There will be your attendant.'" (The plaintiff then bared his leg and pointed out as the scar from the injury a somewhat pinkish place on the front of the leg about six inches in length and from one to two inches in breadth, covered with smooth skin, in which there was no depression).

Musick testified: "I was clerk and manager of the Old Hale Bath House from the 16th of January to the 16th of March, 1891 and sold the tickets. The price of bath tickets and the fee of attendants were regulated by the Secretary of the Interior. The price of a bath ticket for twenty-one baths was $ 4, and the fee of an attendant $ 3. A bathing attendant was allowed to charge 15 cents a bath, or $ 3 for twenty-one baths, and the highest price a bath-house was allowed to charge was 35 cents a bath. The bath-house proprietors had nothing to do with the fee of the bathing attendant, but sometimes the bather would pay it to the manager, and let him pay it to the attendant, and when he would express such a desire I would take it. If the purchaser wanted an attendant but asked for no particular one, the manager would assign one. The bathing attendants were selected by the manager of the bath-house, and no one was allowed there as attendant except by arrangement with the owner or manager.

"Persons desiring to be bathing attendants would apply for positions as such. They did this for the purpose of having opportunities of being employed as attendants by those who came there to bathe. When one would apply for permission to enter the bath-house to seek employment from bathers, he was permitted to do so if there was a vacancy and he was competent and careful; otherwise not. Neither the owner nor manager had anything to do with the directions as to the temperature, kind or duration of baths to be taken, in any case. Directions for all this were given the bather by his physician. The temperature of the vapor baths was fixed by the bath-house, and was stationary, except as it changed from natural causes. If the bather did not wish an attendant, he could bathe without one, and in that case he would be shown where to go for his bath. While the attendant was serving a bather, he was under his direction, and not under that of the manager or proprietor. The manager stays in the front part of the house where the office is kept and the tickets sold, and if he were to call any attendant who was busy, he could not be heard by him. The proprietors paid the attendants nothing, but they kept fires in the stoves in the halls, and kept the rooms, in which they bathed those who employed them, clean."

Bonner testified: "I am a plumber and gas-fitter. I have overhauled the plumbing of the Old Hale Bath House several times, and have done work there during the present year. I know how the vapors are arranged. Under the rear of the bath-house there is a ditch walled up with brick, through which hot water runs all the time, and on the top of the inner wall of this ditch is a pipe three inches in diameter, through which hot water runs; and there were three or four vapor rooms or boxes about two and a half or three feet square, under each of which there is let into the 3-inch pipe, at right angles, a 1-4-inch pipe one or two feet long, extending out under the vapor room, where its end was turned upward for two or three inches, and finished off with a gas tip of which the opening was pressed together, so as to make a flat stream, separate the water and cause it to vaporize more readily. This tip is directly under the seat of the vapor room, so that the particles of water thrown upward from it strike the seat and fall back. The seat is about a foot wide and extends clear across the vapor box, to one side of which it is firmly fixed. From the dampness it swells, and if you wished to get it out you would have to use a hammer. The water from the spray could not get above the seat. In the side of the box to which the seat was fixed, and about twelve inches above it, were cut two circular holes close together, through which those desiring to take knee baths could insert their legs into the vapor room and rest them on the seat. All the knee baths I ever saw were arranged in this way. The floors were of wooden slats. The vapor baths were all of the same temperature. You could not control, increase or diminish their heat, except by a valve on the outside of the building; and the only control was to shut it off altogether, or let it run full."

Washington testified that when the weather was cold or the wind blowing the vapors were not so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Biskup v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1926
    ...Act of 1921. Claremont Country Club v. Industrial Com., 174 Cal. 394; Indian Hill Country Club v. Industrial Com., 309 Ills. 271; Gaines v. Bard, 57 Ark. 615; Quarman v. Burnett, 6 Mees. & W. 499; Sluder v. Transit Co., 189 Mo. 139 et seq.; 1 Labatt, Master & Serv., secs. 19, 52, 61. (5) Th......
  • Fort Smith & Van Buren District v. Kidd
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1922
    ...for the district. Therefore the company was not liable for the act of the commissioners. 28 L. R. A. 552; 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379; 57 Ark. 615; 98 399; 87 Ark. 524. Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the collector was in the employ of the company, it would still not be liable, as the......
  • Arkansas Land & Lumber Company v. Secrist
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1915
  • Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad Co. v. Sokal
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1895
    ...more force was used than was necessary. There was no evidence on either point to go to the jury. Furthermore, they were misleading. 57 Ark. 615. 4. damages were excessive. 5. The question of punitive damages should not have been submitted to the jury. 147 U.S. 101; 53 Ark. 7. W. A. Percy an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT