Hunt v. Dell

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HUMPHREYS, J.
• Citation: Hunt v. Dell, 226 S.W. 1055, 147 Ark. 95 (Ark. 1921)
• Decision Date: 17 January 1921
• Docket Number: 110
• Parties: HUNT v. DELL

226 S.W. 1055

147 Ark. 95

HUNT v. DELL

No. 110

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 17, 1921

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District; R. H. Dudley Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.

F. G Taylor, for appellant.

The court should have directed a verdict for defendant, as plaintiff's injury was the result of an assumed risk of his own negligence, as shown by the undisputed evidence. There was no negligence of the master in failing to warn a man of ordinary intelligence and experience in the operation of machinery as to its condition and danger, which were obvious and not concealed. Plaintiff assumed the risk. 180 S.W. 984; 95 Ark. 560; 82 Id. 534; 93 Id 153; 107 Id. 341. By his own negligent act he went into a dangerous place and was injured, and no one was responsible for his injury. 66 Ark. 237; 125 Id. 480. The defect was obvious, and so was the danger, and plaintiff assumed the risk. 135 Ark. 503 and cases cited. The case should be reversed and dismissed, as the case is fully developed. A verdict should have been directed on the defenses of assumed risk and contributory negligence.

Oliver & Oliver, for appellee.

Where a young and experienced servant is employed to operate a dangerous machine, it is the duty of the master to inform him how to operate it safely, and for an injury caused by a breach of such duty the master is liable in damages. 71 Ark. 55; 81 Id. 247; 73 Id. 49; 105 Id. 247; 115 Id. 380. See, also, to same effect, 82 Ark. 243; 90 Id. 473. Not only was defendant negligent in failing to warn plaintiff of the danger, but he was further negligent in failing to put in working order after the fire the compressed air starter. The question as to whether he was negligent in failing to do either was a question of fact submitted to the jury on proper instructions, and the verdict is sustained by ample testimony.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellee instituted suit against appellant in the Clay Circuit Court, Western District, to recover damages on account of an injury received while engaged in cranking a gasoline engine by assisting others in turning a fly-wheel attached thereto, which engine was used as the power in the operation of a gasoline dredge boat. Two grounds of negligence were charged and made the basis of the action. The first allegation was that appellee was a minor, inexperienced in the use of the machinery, and that appellant failed to warn him of the dangers incident to the operation of the machinery and place in which he was required to work. The second allegation was that the machinery was defective, in that the engine was being operated without a compressed air starter.

Appellant interposed the defenses of assumed risk and contributory negligence on the part of appellee.

The cause was submitted on the pleadings, evidence and instructions of the court, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee against appellant for $ 998.75, from which verdict and judgment an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

Appellee a reasonably intelligent young man of twenty years of age, was employed about the 15th day of December, 1916, by appellant, as a laborer on a dredge boat operated by a gasoline engine. His work consisted in getting wood for the cabin boat, dynamiting stumps, oiling machinery, etc. He worked in this capacity until the holidays. He returned after the holidays and was transferred to a steam dredge boat where he was engaged in the same character of work for about a month. The following month, he was employed to operate a 25-horse-power gasoline engine stationed on the ground and used for pumping water. The engine was cranked, or started, by hand in turning fly-wheels attached thereto. He then returned home and was re-employed the first part of April following, to assist in rebuilding the gasoline dredge boat, which, in the meantime, had been injured by fire. The rebuilding of the gasoline boat was completed about April 20, with the exception of the compressed air starter, with which the engine had previously been equipped. There were two fly-wheels attached to the engine three and one-half feet apart, to one of which wheels a belt and pulley were attached. The engine was a 60 horsepower gasoline engine and the fly-wheels were much larger than the fly-wheels on the smaller gasoline engine which had theretofore been operated by appellee--being seven feet each in diameter. The engine was purchased directly from the manufacturer and was complete without an air starter. The method of starting it was to turn the fly-wheels by hand. Before the dredge boat was destroyed, the engine had a compressed air starter attached, which made it easier to turn the fly-wheels by hand. This starter had been bought separate and apart from the machinery and attached by appellee. It was destroyed...