Knight v. Farmers' & Merchants' Gin Company

• Decision Date: 18 June 1923
• Docket Number: 44
• Citation: 252 S.W. 30,159 Ark. 423
• Parties: KNIGHT v. FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' GIN COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

252 S.W. 30

159 Ark. 423

KNIGHT v. FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' GIN COMPANY

No. 44

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 18, 1923

Appealed from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; W. W. Bandy, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J T. Coston, for appellant.

Appellant's intestate was an invitee on the premises of appellee and injured by its negligence, and the court erred in directing a verdict for appellee, 92 S.W. 791. The fact that deceased was a stockholder in appellee corporation did not relieve it from the duty of exercising reasonable care to prevent injury to him who was on the premises by invitation. Corporation is under control of directors. C. & M. Digest, § 1717; 37 P. 124, 167 N.W. 1048. The judgment should be reversed and the issues submitted to a jury.

Little Buck & Lasley, for appellee.

Choate, although a stockholder in appellee company, was only a licensee, not an invitee. 156 Mass. 426. No duty owed to him as such. 57 Ark. 16; 48 Ark. 493; 74 N.H. 116; 14 L. R. A. 276, 31 Am. St. Rep. 520; 20 L. R. A. 714; 87 Am. Dec. 644; 32 Am. St. Rep. (W. Va.) 859; 60 N.E. 205; 98 Am. Dec. 317; 11 L. R. A. (La.) 720. If Choate's status be treated as analogous to a landlord's on the rented premises, he was nothing more than a mere licensee. Tiffany on Landlord & Tenant, 13. If Choate was an invitee, he should have notified appellee of his presence, and he was guilty of contributory negligence also. 69 Me. 173; 48 Vt. 127; 2 Thompson on negligence, § 988; 20 R. C. L. 70. The belt was properly laced, and, even though Choate be considered an invitee, appellee was not liable for his injury. Ry. v. Dooley, 77 Ark. 566.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages sustained by appellant's intestate, R. C. Choate, by the breaking of a belt at appellee's cotton gin, which, it is alleged, was caused by negligence of appellee's employees in failing to properly lace or brad together the ends of the belt. It is alleged in the complaint that Choate was a visitor at the gin on business in which appellee was interested, and at the invitation of the manager of appellee's business.

The answer contained a denial of the allegations of negligence with respect to the lacing or bradding together of the gin belt, and also denied that Choate was on the premises at the invitation of appellee's manager, and alleged that Choate was there voluntarily and merely as a licensee.

Choate died during the pendency of the action, appellee was appointed administratrix, and the cause was revived in her name.

At the trial of the cause, after appellant had introduced her testimony, the court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of appellee. The only question presented therefore is whether or not there was evidence legally sufficient to sustain a verdict in favor of appellant.

Appellee is a domestic corporation, organized in Mississippi County for the purpose of building and operating a public cotton gin at the town of Leachville. R. C. Choate, a retired merchant and farmer, was the largest stockholder in the corporation, but he was not a director or officer of the company, and was in nowise connected with the management of its affairs.

The gin was completed and put into operation early in October, 1921, and on October 14, according to the undisputed evidence, Choate visited the gin plant and entered the engine room, without the knowledge of any one at the gin. The first one to discover his presence there was the machinist in charge, who testified that he went into the engine room and saw Mr. Choate standing there as if he were examining a pump, and that, as the belt had broken once before, he was in the act of calling out a warning to Choate when the belt broke loose from the drive-wheel and struck Choate's hand, breaking the bones in two of his fingers. The gin had been in operation three or four days, and this was Choate's first appearance at the gin, so far as the testimony in this case discloses. The belt was one which revolved around the drive-wheel, was about seventy-five feet in length, fourteen inches wide, five-ply in thickness, and made of rubber. The ends were fastened together by hooks specially prepared for that purpose. Originally the belt had been cut too short and had to be spliced by another piece fourteen or sixteen inches in length, and each end of the spliced pieces was fastened to or connected with the main part of the belt by hooks. The proof shows that the hooks were of standard make and in common use for fastening belts, though there is another method adopted by using lace leather. The unfastening of the belt was caused by the hooks pulling out.

Appellee introduced no testimony, but its manager, Rose, and the machinist in charge, Groves, were introduced as witnesses by appellant, and the testimony of those witnesses was relied upon by appellant as making a case in her favor. Rose testified that several times during the construction of the gin Choate asked him, when they met by chance, how they were getting along at the gin plant; that he made reply to Choate that they were getting along all right, and invited Choate to come down to the plant and look it over. Rose testified that these conversations occurred several times up to about the time, or perhaps after, the gin was started into operation, but the witness was not certain that the conversations occurred after the gin was started. The statements of the witness, as they appear in the transcript, are as follows:

"Q. State whether or not you ever extended to him an invitation to come down to the premises and look the machinery over? A. I had at times. I didn't that morning. In fact, I didn't know he was in the gin that morning until he was hurt. I had invited him down at times before that. Q. Well, was that a general invitation, or an invitation to come and see certain parts of it? A. Well, I had asked him to come down and look it over."

On cross-examination the statements of the witness were as follows:

"Q. Mr. Choate was a stockholder? A. Yes sir. Q. One of the largest? A. Yes sir; he was the largest. Q. Was he a director in the company? A. No sir. Q. He had nothing to do with the running of the gin? A. No sir. Q. You say that you had invited him to come to the gin? A. Yes sir. Q. That is while you were building it? A. Yes sir. Q. How did you happen to do that? A. Well, I would be talking to him, and he would say, 'How are you getting along down there?' and I would say, 'All right,' and he said, 'Well, I am coming down and see how you are getting along,' and I said, 'All right, come down.' Q. That would be the extent of your invitation, would it? A. Yes sir. Q. You didn't know he was there that morning? A. No sir. Q. And he had no invitation from you to be there that morning? A. No sir. Q. You had not invited him to be in there at any time while the machinery was in operation, had you? A. I had just invited him down at different times. Q. Well, did you ever invite him to come down there and stand around while the machinery was in operation? A. Well, I had just invited him down is all. * * * Q. Your invitation was just casually made to him to come down? A. I just invited him to come down and look over the proposition."

The redirect examination on this subject was as follows: "Q. You say you invited him while the gin was being erected to come down? A. Yes sir. Q. And after it was finished, tell the jury whether you then invited him to come down or not? A. Well, I couldn't say. I could not say whether it was after it was finished and we were running or not. He would meet me and ask me how we were getting along, and I would tell him all right, that we were going to start up. Q. State whether or not, after you told him that you were going to start up, you invited him down? A. Well, I invited him in that way."

Further cross-examination was as follows: "Q. You didn't invite him because of any benefit to yourself or the gin company, did you, but for his own pleasure and convenience? A. It was...