Paul v. Safley Const. Co., 85-92
| Decision Date | 09 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-92,85-92 |
| Citation | 700 S.W.2d 55,287 Ark. 412 |
| Parties | Andrew PAUL et al., Appellants, v. SAFLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Kaplan, Brewer & Miller by Silas H. Brewer, Jr., Little Rock, for appellants.
Laser, Sharp & Mayes, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is a wrongful death case. Gary Paul was an employee of Central Boring Company, which had a subcontract with Safley Construction Company on a sewer construction project in Mayflower, Arkansas. Paul was killed in August, 1982. He was guiding a pipe that was being lowered under a buried telephone cable. The crane holding the pipe touched or came close to a live power line, electrocuting Paul.
His parents and brothers sued Arkansas Power and Light Company and the prime contractor, Safley Construction Company. AP & L was dismissed at the end of the plaintiff's case. Appellants allege Safley breached its duty under its contract with the city to initiate, maintain, and supervise all safety precautions and programs, and provide necessary safety protection to prevent injury to all employees on the construction project. Safley also had a duty to supervise and be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, procedures and sequences at work on the construction project. Appellants contend Safley's breach of this duty proximately caused the death of Paul. Safley argued that the subcontractor assumed the responsibility for the safety of its own employees. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Safley Construction Company. On appeal two arguments are made. The first relates to this instruction, which was refused by the trial court and reads:
A prime contractor is liable to employees of a subcontractor who are injured as a result of the prime contractor's negligent failure to perform its contract by which it undertakes to supervise construction and see that safety laws and regulations are complied with, and agrees to maintain safety precautions and practices for the project, including employees of subcontractors.
The fact that a subcontractor also agrees to comply with safety laws and regulations, and to maintain safe work practices, does not absolve the prime contractor of liability.
The trial court found there was no evidence that Safley was guilty of any negligence under the contract's safety programs that could have caused this accident. The trial court was correct as it observed:
I'm not going to give any instruction, that is, I am going to refuse any instruction offered me along that line. Here's the thing about it, on the safety program you furnish gloves to your employees, you furnish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrory v. Johnson
...was not a correct instruction in that it was not simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument. See Paul v. Safley Const. Co., 287 Ark. 412, 700 S.W.2d 55 (1985). This contention is also without C. COMMENT BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. The McCrorys assert that the trial court erred when it informe......
-
Haith v. District of Columbia, 84-135.
...by acceding to that request. "An instruction must be simple, brief, impartial and free from argument." Paul v. Safley Construction Co., 287 Ark. 412, 413, 700 S.W.2d 55, 56 (1985) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., Montieth v. Atchison, 7'. & S.F. Ry., 151 Cal.App.2d 442, 456, 311 P.2d 886, ......
-
Tyson v. Roberts, 85-185
... ... 287 Ark. 409 ... Kenneth TYSON, Appellant, ... Paul K. ROBERTS, Circuit Judge, Appellee ... No. 85-185 ... General Utilities Co. v. Smith, 188 Ark. 413, 66 S.W.2d 297 (1933). There the ... ...
-
Pineview Farms, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Harvestore, Inc., 88-205
...or qualification. Williams, supra. A jury instruction must be simple, impartial, and free from argument. Paul v. Safley Construction Co., 287 Ark. 412, 700 S.W.2d 55 (1985). A litigant is not entitled to his particular preference in the wording of instructions, and a trial judge is not requ......