Grayson-McLeod Lumber Co. v. Carter

• Decision Date: 17 June 1905
• Parties: GRAYSON-McLEOD LUMBER CO. v. CARTER.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

88 S.W. 597 GRAYSON-McLEOD LUMBER CO.
v.
CARTER. Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 17, 1905.

Page 598

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; Joel D. Conway, Judge.

Action by Henry Carter against the Grayson-McLeod Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. H. Crawford, for appellant. J. E. Callaway and C. V. Murry, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

Henry Carter sued the Grayson-McLeod Lumber Company for damages arising from personal injuries. He alleged in his complaint substantially as follows: That defendant owns and operates a line of railway in connection with its sawmill at Guerdon; that plaintiff is a common laborer, and was in 1892 in defendant's employ, engaged in removing a railway trestle; that he was ordered to go upon a trestle by defendant's superintendent, who assured him that it was safe; that, in obedience to said order, being unaware of the danger, he went upon the trestle, and while there at work it fell, and he was thrown to the ground, his hip broken, body and head seriously injured, from which he suffered great physical pain and mental distress, continuing for ____ months, and was permanently injured, and made a cripple for life.

He charges defendant with negligence (1) in requiring him to go upon said trestle while it was being torn down, knowing that it was liable to fall, and that it was dangerous to be on it at the time, place, and under the circumstances; (2) in being unmindful of his safety, in having the stringers of said trestle pulled down while he was upon it; and (3) in failing to use such care in the removal of the trestle as would subject the laborers thereon to the least possible danger.

That before said injury he was a stout, active, healthy man, but since he is permanently disabled and incapable of earning a living. He prayed judgment for $5,000 damages.

Defendant, in its answer, specifically denied each and every act of negligence as charged in the complaint, and alleged that plaintiff was engaged in an extrahazardous line of duty—that of dismantling the bridges on its logging road; that whatever danger attended that work was as apparent to plaintiff as to defendant; and that, if there was any special danger, the defendant was not aware of it prior to the collapse and fall of the bridge. It alleged that plaintiff's injury grew out of the risks assumed by him, and which were incident to the dangerous character of the work in which he was engaged.

That plaintiff was guilty of...