McKennon v. Jones, No. 4-9613

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtHOLT
Citation244 S.W.2d 138,219 Ark. 671
Decision Date17 December 1951
Docket NumberNo. 4-9613
PartiesMcKENNON et al. v. JONES et al.

Page 138

244 S.W.2d 138
219 Ark. 671
McKENNON et al.
v.
JONES et al.
No. 4-9613.
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Dec. 17, 1951.

Page 139

James Merritt, McGehee, for appellees.

Mullis & McCain, Pine Bluff, and Smith & Smith, McGehee, for appellants.

HOLT, Justice.

Appellee, J. A. Jones, sued appellants, C. R. McKennon and his son, Joe Lee McKennon, individually, and as a partnership, (in tort) to recover damages for loss of honey bees and honey, alleged to have resulted, on July 1, 1947, while appellants were dusting, by airplane, a cotton crop, (owned by appellants, C. R. McKennon and son) with a poisonous and dangerous substance. Appellee, Reasor-Hill Corporation, manufacturers of the poison used, and Kern McClendon, who was employed by the McKennons to spread the poison on their cotton fields, were made third party defendants, on motion of the McKennons under the 'Uniform Contributions Among Tortfeasors Act,' 315 of 1941, now Ark. Stats. 1947, sections 34-1001-34-1009.

Appellants, in separate answers, made general denials. A jury trial resulted in the following verdict for appellee: 'We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, J. A. Jones, and assess his damages in the total sum of $1500.00; as against C. R. McKennon and Joe Lee McKennon, doing business as C. R. McKennon & Son in the sum of $1250.00 [219 Ark. 672] of said sum, and Kern McClendon in the sum of $250.00 of said sum. We, the jury, find for the defendant, Reasor-Hill Corporation.' From the judgment, in conformity with the verdict, is this appeal.

There was no contention that the verdict was excessive.

(1)

For reversal, appellants first argue that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. We cannot agree. The record reflects that appellants, McKennon and son, employed appellant, Kern McClendon, to dust their cotton in a field near appellee's property and apiary with a poison called 'R-H Dust' to rid the cotton field of boll weevils. Kern used an airplane in spreading the poison and there is evidence that he flew over appellee's apiary and dusted his bees and bee hives with the poisonous dust, which caused the destruction of the bees, together with a large quantity of honey.

Appellee, Jones, testified:

'Q. Did you see planes dusting July 1st? A. Yes, sir, I watched from the time it started until the end.

'Q. Which dusting killed your bees? A. Both of them. It came in until you couldn't hardly get your breath. You could stand 150 yards from the bees and you couldn't hardly see the bee hives there for it. * * *

'Q. What did you testify before as to how near Mr. McKennon's land is to you? A. How far is his land?

'Q. Yes. A. He has got land that runs up,--I will say it is,--I don't believe it is two hundred yards from mine. * * *

'Q. You mean to tell the jury now that that airplane was poisoning that field two mornings in succession? A. It poisoned the 30th and the 1st. The 30th of June.'

There was other testimony tending to corroborate appellee.

Appellant, Joe L. McKennon, testified that his firm bought cotton poison from the firm of Henley & Johnson Purina Feed Company, and employed the third party defendant, Kern McClendon, to dust their cotton.

[219 Ark. 673] J. T....

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • McGarry v. United States, Civ. No. LV-1504
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • October 30, 1973
    ...another, by an employee, to whom the employer has delegated, or contracted, the performance of the work."' "See also, McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138; Kennedy v. Clayton, 216 Ark. 851, 227 S.W.2d 934; Giem v. Williams, 215 Ark. 705, 222 S.W.2d "Thus, under the Arkansas law t......
  • Mccorkle Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, No. CA 01-1405.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • September 18, 2002
    ...Bell Tel. Co. v. Smith, 220 Ark. 223, 247 S.W.2d 16 (1952); Heeb v. Prysock, 219 Ark. 899, 245 S.W.2d 577 (1952); McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138 (1951); Hammond Ranch Corp. v. Dodson, 199 Ark. 846, 136 S.W.2d 484 In McKennon v. Jones, supra, a pesticide spray was used and r......
  • Anderson v. STATE, DNR, No. A03-679.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • March 3, 2005
    ...liability has been regularly imposed in cases concerning pesticide spray that drifted and killed bees. See, e.g., McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138, 139 (1951); Lundberg v. Bolon, 67 Ariz. 259, 194 P.2d 454, 459 (Ariz.1948); Miles v. A. Arena & Co., 23 Cal.App.2d 680, 73 P.2d ......
  • Corprew v. Geigy Chemical Corp., No. 34
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 11, 1967
    ...manufactured as a harmless insecticide, but which actually contained ingredients harmful to beets. In the case of McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138 (1951), a judgment against a manufacturer of a crop spray for loss of bees and honey caused by the spray was held supported by th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • McGarry v. United States, Civ. No. LV-1504
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • October 30, 1973
    ...another, by an employee, to whom the employer has delegated, or contracted, the performance of the work."' "See also, McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138; Kennedy v. Clayton, 216 Ark. 851, 227 S.W.2d 934; Giem v. Williams, 215 Ark. 705, 222 S.W.2d "Thus, under the Arkansas law t......
  • Mccorkle Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, No. CA 01-1405.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • September 18, 2002
    ...Bell Tel. Co. v. Smith, 220 Ark. 223, 247 S.W.2d 16 (1952); Heeb v. Prysock, 219 Ark. 899, 245 S.W.2d 577 (1952); McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138 (1951); Hammond Ranch Corp. v. Dodson, 199 Ark. 846, 136 S.W.2d 484 In McKennon v. Jones, supra, a pesticide spray was used and r......
  • Anderson v. STATE, DNR, No. A03-679.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • March 3, 2005
    ...liability has been regularly imposed in cases concerning pesticide spray that drifted and killed bees. See, e.g., McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138, 139 (1951); Lundberg v. Bolon, 67 Ariz. 259, 194 P.2d 454, 459 (Ariz.1948); Miles v. A. Arena & Co., 23 Cal.App.2d 680, 73 P.2d ......
  • Corprew v. Geigy Chemical Corp., No. 34
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 11, 1967
    ...manufactured as a harmless insecticide, but which actually contained ingredients harmful to beets. In the case of McKennon v. Jones, 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138 (1951), a judgment against a manufacturer of a crop spray for loss of bees and honey caused by the spray was held supported by th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT