Hurst v. Feild, 83-206
| Citation | 661 S.W.2d 393,281 Ark. 106 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-206,83-206 |
| Parties | Leon HURST and Marvlean Hurst, Appellants, v. Roscoe A. FEILD, Jr.; Palmer Miller; and the James B. Gilbert Trust, A Partnership; Texaco, Inc.; Lee Krigbaum; and Troy Coleman, Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Page 393
v.
Roscoe A. FEILD, Jr.; Palmer Miller; and the James B.
Gilbert Trust, A Partnership; Texaco, Inc.; Lee
Krigbaum; and Troy Coleman, Appellees.
Page 394
[281 Ark. 107] McDaniel, Gott & Wells, P.A. by Phillip Wells, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, Jonesboro, for Troy Coleman.
Jack M. Short, Tulsa, Okl., and Frierson, Walker, Snellgrove and Laser by G.D. Walker, Jonesboro, for Texaco.
Reid, Burge & Prevallet by Donald Prevallet, Blytheville, for Roscoe A. Feild, Jr. and Palmer Miller and The James B. Gilbert Trust.
ADKISSON, Chief Justice.
This suit alleged negligence of owners, lessors, and sublessors and resulting damages to sublessee for personal injuries because of failure to repair the leased premises. Based on depositions and affidavits, the Craighead County Circuit Court granted summary judgment, holding that the duty to repair rested on the sublessee, appellant Hurst. Summary judgment was granted in favor of appellees Roscoe A. Feild, Jr., Palmer Miller, and James B. Gilbert, owners; and for appellees Texaco, Inc. and Lee Krigbaum, its agent, lessor; and for appellee Tony Coleman, sublessor. Appellant Hurst, sublessee, contends the trial court erred in ruling that the appellees are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We agree as to appellee Coleman.
The Texaco service station in question is located in [281 Ark. 108] Jonesboro and is owned by appellees Roscoe A. Feild, Jr., Palmer Miller, and the James B. Gilbert Trust. The owners' predecessor in title, Vepale, Inc., leased the station to appellee Texaco, Inc. in 1962. By the terms of that lease, the lessor agreed to make major repairs over $50.00. In 1970 Texaco, Inc. subleased the station to appellant, Leon Hurst, and he remained as proprietor and in possession until November, 1978. During this time a stone facade wall was erected on the premises. In November, 1978, the station was subleased by Texaco to appellee Coleman who then entered into an oral sublease with Hurst who remained as proprietor. On January 8, 1980, a portion of the stone facade wall collapsed causing injuries to Hurst. The subleases executed by Texaco, Inc., first to Hurst and then to Coleman, contained the agreement that the lessee would maintain the station in good repair and in a clean, safe, and healthful condition. The terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxley v. Colonial Ins. Co.
...74 (1983). In order to be entitled to a summary judgment, the moving party has to show there is no issue of fact. Hurst v. Feild, 281 Ark. 106, 661 S.W.2d 393 (1983). 286 Ark. at 490, 696 S.W.2d 308. In Wolner v. Bogaev, 290 Ark. 299, 718 S.W.2d 942 (1986), the court said: It is an extreme ......
-
Propst v. McNeill
...360, 737 S.W.2d 649 (1987); E. E. Terry, Inc. v. Cities of Helena & W. Helena, 256 Ark. 226, 506 S.W.2d 573 (1974); Hurst v. Feild, 281 Ark. 106, 661 S.W.2d 393 (1983). Consistent with this doctrine, the trial court here determined that, under the parties' lease, the Commission never agreed......
-
Thomas v. Stewart
...340 Ark. 563, 11 S.W.3d 531 (2000). In support of her argument that summary judgment was inappropriate, Thomas cites Hurst v. Feild, 281 Ark. 106, 661 S.W.2d 393 (1983). In that case, a gas station was leased to Texaco, Inc.; under the terms of the lease to Texaco, the owner agreed to make ......
-
Culpepper v. Smith, 89-301
... ... Hurst v. Feild, 281 Ark. 106, 661 S.W.2d 393 (1983). The purpose of a summary judgment is not to try ... ...