International Harvester Co. v. Land, 5-2581
| Decision Date | 19 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2581,5-2581 |
| Citation | 354 S.W.2d 13,234 Ark. 682 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., Appellant, v. Cyril LAND, Administrator, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wright, Lindsey, Jennings, Lester & Shults, Little Rock, for appellant.
McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an action in tort. On April 22, 1960, Mack Farlin Land drove an International Harvester truck, the property of his father, Cyril Land, to the International Harvester Company shop at 190 East 6th Street in Little Rock for the purpose of having certain additional equipment installed.
John C. Bergman, assistant shop Manager for International Harvester Company, was advised by Mack Farlin Land that the gear shift lever on the truck was difficult to operate. After inspecting and manipulating the gear shift lever, Mr. Bergman raised the cab of the truck in order to make an additional check.
On this particular model truck, the cab is elevated by means of two pistons that are powered by the use of hydraulic pressure. A hydraulic pump, or jack, is located on the frame of the truck, and the truck is equipped with a handle which is inserted into the proper slot for elevating the cab. There is a valve located at, or near, the pump to control the flow of hydraulic fluid. Pictures of the cab as elevated aids an understanding.
The truck is equipped with a plate that may be used to hold the cab in the proper elevated position after it is elevated. The mechanism is designed with two slots in the shell of the cylinder so that the plate may be inserted in either of the slots and depending upon which slot is used, the cab is held in either a fully elevated or partially elevated position.
As John C. Bergman was elevating the cab by use of the jack, he observed that it operated slowly, and he advised Mack Farlin Land that the mechanism needed additional hydraulic fluid. After being told by Land that there was a leak in a hydraulic line, Bergman was having the leak repaired. After Bergman had elevated the cab as high as it would go with the reduced hydraulic pressure, the plate was inserted in a slot in the cylinder shell. There is a dispute in the evidence as to whether the plate was inserted by Bergman or Land. One of the International Harvester mechanics, W. J. Gartrell, proceeded with the repair of the fitting that was permitting the leakage of hydraulic fluid. Additional fluid escaped during the course of the repairs. After the repairs were completed, Gartrell secured additional hydraulic fluid to add to the system and proceeded toward the truck, accompanied by Mack Farlin Land and one, Glynn Land, a cousin of Mack Farlin Land. Gartrell detoured to his workbench to open the can of hydraulic fluid, and Mack and Glynn Land proceeded directly to the truck. Mack Farlin Land was in a position with his head under the upraised cab of the truck, when the truck cab fell and pinned his head against the frame of the truck, causing his death almost instantly. Suit was filed by appellee, administrator of the estate of Mack Farlin Land, deceased, on behalf of himself, his wife, and the estate, in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, against John C. Bergman and appellant, International Harvester Company. Evidence was presented at the trial of the deep grief endured by the parents of Mack Farlin as a result of his tragic death. Evidence was also presented that during his lifetime he consistently contributed money to the support of his parents, that he did most of the work on their small farm, that both parents were in bad health and that they anticipated that he would continue to assist them financially, if he had lived. A verdict was rendered against International Harvester Company in the sum of $30,000. A verdict was rendered in favor of John C. Bergman, International Shop Foreman, who was supervising the work on the truck at the time of the fatality.
When the verdict of the jury was first returned into court, the trial judge, upon examination, ascertained that the jury had only filled in the amount of $30,000 in the blank providing for the amount to be recovered on behalf of the estate. The other blanks were not filled in. The only damage sustained or claimed by the estate was $1,523, the amount of the funeral bill, as there was no indication of conscious pain and suffering. The trial judge did not accept this verdict but called counsel into chambers and without revealing the verdict discussed the matter fully with them. Counsel for the appellees suggested that the jury be sent back for further deliberation but counsel for the appellant made the following suggestion:
'I have no objection--I don't think I would have any grounds for objection--but I will state to the court that I have no objection to the Court attempting to ascertain what their intention was, and then aiding the jury in rendering a verdict that conforms to their intention.'
After a discussion, this suggestion was adopted by the court, counsel for the appellees having assented. The trial judge returned to the court room and carefully questioned the jury to ascertain the intentions. The true verdict of the jury was determined, whereupon, the trial court entered judgment of $1,523 on behalf of the estate and $14,238.50 each for the use and benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Land against International Harvester Company. Judgment was entered for the defendant John C. Bergman. The International Harvester Company has appealed from the judgment entered against it.
As one of its points relied on for reversal, appellant strenuously urges that the trial court erred in its determination of the jury verdict and contends that the court should have declared a mistrial, or in the alternative the judgment should have been limited to the $1,523 funeral expenses claimed by the estate. From the record it is clear that the trial court handled the determination competently and fairly and that the verdict fairly rendered reflected the true intention of the jury. Particularly is this true in view of the above quoted suggestion made by appellant's counsel which was followed by the court. See Trailmobile v. Robinson, 227 Ark. 915, 302 S.W.2d 786.
For reversal appellant further urges that 'in view of the judgment in favor of John C. Bergman, the evidence will not support a judgment against appellant' and that the judgment rendered is excessive. The appellees predicated their cause of action against International on two theories. One theory sought to charge International with the alleged negligence of its employee J. C. Bergman, a co-defendant below. The jury, however, found in favor of Bergman, and in so doing relieved International of responsibility on respondeat superior. Appellees, however, in the alternative, alleged that International was responsible in tort for the death of Mack Land on a 'products liability' theory, that is, for defective design or manufacture of the truck and the plate designed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Pennington
...or reduction of an award for mental anguish would be in order when it: (1) Shocks the conscience of the court (International Harvester Co. v. Land, 234 Ark. 682, 354 S.W.2d 13; Tiner v. Tiner, supra; Eisele v. Beaudoin, supra, 240 Ark. 227, 398 S.W.2d 676; Moon Distributors, Inc. v. White, ......
-
Rhoads v. Service Machine Company
...liability should be predicated upon foreseeability of injury rather than on privity of contract. In the later case of International Harvester Co. v. Land, 234 Ark. 682, 354 S. W.2d 13, the Court stated (p. 687 of 234 Ark., 354 S.W.2d 13) that the "`products liability'" doctrine is "now comm......
-
Connell v. Steel Haulers, Inc., 71-1429.
...238 Ark. 617, 383 S. W.2d 489 (1964); J. Paul Smith Co. v. Tipton, 237 Ark. 486, 374 S.W.2d 176 (1964); International Harvester Co. v. Land, 234 Ark. 682, 354 S.W.2d 13 (1962). In comparison to the facts recited in these cases, we think the record here amply justified the trial court in sub......
-
Norman v. Gray
...in measuring damages of this kind, moreover, should not preclude their recovery in a proper case.' See, also, International Harvester v. Land, 234 Ark. 682, 354 S.W.2d 13; Tiner v. Tiner, 238 Ark. 22, 379 S.W.2d 425; and Pitts v. Greene, 238 Ark. 438, 382 S.W.2d 904, where we approved subst......