Mceachin v. Yarborough
| Decision Date | 18 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 4-3542 |
| Citation | 74 S.W.2d 228,189 Ark. 434 |
| Parties | MCEACHIN v. YARBOROUGH |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; Thomas E. Toler, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Cockrill Armistead & Rector, for appellants.
A. C Thomas and W. R. Donham, for appellee.
To compensate an injury which was received under the circumstances hereinafter detailed, this suit was instituted by appellee, Jack T. Yarborough, against appellants, Grover C. McEachin et al., in the Saline County Circuit Court. The facts are not in material dispute and may be summarized as follows:
On and prior to June 27, 1933, appellants, as a partnership, were engaged in constructing a hard-surfaced highway and bridges incident thereto in Perry County, and appellee was employed by appellants as a stone mason to assist in building and constructing a stone bridge over Cove Creek. It was the duty of appellants to furnish the stone and other materials used in the construction of the bridge, while it was the duty of appellee to, and he did, furnish the tools with which the stone was sized and shaped for use in the structure. The stone employed in the construction of the bridge were obtained in the vicinity of the immediate work and were commonly known and designated as "native stone." Appellee had been in the employ of appellants for some time prior to June 27, 1933, performing similar services, and during this period practically, if not all, the stone furnished by appellant to appellee for use in construction of bridges was obtained from a rock quarry near Stone Mountain practically if not all this stone was of a sand stone nature and easily broken and shaped for the builder's uses. On June 27, 1933, the supply of stone theretofore furnished being exhausted, appellants obtained a truck load or more of stones from the bed of South Fourche Creek. The stone thus obtained from South Fourche Creek was of a hard and brittle nature and not pliable for the uses contemplated as were the stones theretofore used, although from outside appearances this stone appeared to be of the same nature and quality as stone theretofore obtained from Stone Mountain. Appellants did not apprise appellee that this last load of stone was obtained from the bed of South Fourche Creek, and appellee assumed that these stones came from the Stone Mountain quarry. In the forenoon of June 27, 1933, appellee, while engaged in performance of his duty constructing said bridge, obtained a stone, which was one stone from the load of stones theretofore furnished by appellants and obtained from South Fourche Creek, and undertook to size and shape it for the use contemplated. To effect this purpose, appellee struck the stone with a hammer, whereupon it shattered and crushed, a fragment of which struck appellee in the eye and destroyed the sight thereof. Appellants admit that if liability exists the award is not excessive, therefore it is not necessary to state the facts in reference to the extent of appellee's injury. The theory upon which the trial progressed is reflected in appellee's instruction No. 1 as follows:
"If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff, Jack T. Yarborough, at the time he was injured and for some time prior thereto, was in the employ of the defendants doing stone work in the construction of a bridge, and, if you further find that it was the duty of the defendants to furnish the stone used by the plaintiff; and if you further find that, prior to furnishing the last few loads of stone, the stone furnished by the defendants was of a sandstone or limestone formation, being of such formation that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis- San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bryan
... ... knowledge of the situation and condition equals or surpasses ... that of the employer. McEachin" v ... Yarborough, 189 Ark. 434, 74 S.W.2d 228; ... Mid-Continent Quicksilver Co. v. Ashbrook, ... 194 Ark. 744, 109 S.W.2d 448 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Eudora Motor Co. v. Womack
... ... and that no duty rested upon appellee himself to make such ... examination where defects are not obvious and plainly ... discoverable. McEachin v. Burks, 189 Ark ... 947, 75 S.W.2d 794; Boyle-Farrell Land Co. v ... Haynes, 161 Ark. 183, 256 S.W. 43. There appears to ... be substantial ... Keller that it had been done and that the ... car was in a safe condition for driving ... In ... McEachin v. Yarborough, 189 Ark. 434, 74 ... S.W.2d 228, and Kurn v. Faubus, 191 Ark ... 232, 84 S.W.2d 602, the court announced the rule that where ... the perils of ... ...
-
Lee v. Pate
... ... In that regard the rights of the parties are fixed and ... determined by the announcement made by this court in the case ... of McEachin v. Yarborough, 189 Ark. 434, 74 ... S.W.2d 228. See Missouri Pacific Rd. Co. v ... Vinson, 196 Ark. 500, 118 S.W.2d 672 ... ...
-
Louis B. Siegel & Co. v. Moore
..."would shatter like a piece of glass". An experienced employee assumes all ordinary risks incident to his employment. McEachin v. Yarborough, 189 Ark. 434, 74 S.W.2d 228; Southwestern Telephone Company v. Woughter, 56 Ark. 206, 19 S.W. 575. The McEachin decision is cited by appellant, and i......