Pettus & Buford v. Kerr

• Decision Date: 28 September 1908
• Citation: 112 S.W. 886
• Parties: PETTUS & BUFORD v. KERR.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

112 S.W. 886

PETTUS & BUFORD v. KERR.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

September 28, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Francis County; Hance N. Hutton, Judge.

Action by J. D. Kerr against Pettus & Buford. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

R. J. Williams and N. W. Norton, for appellants. S. H. Mann, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, J.

Appellee was employed by appellants to work in a cotton gin, and sues them to recover damages for physical injuries received while at work replacing a belt which had escaped from a pulley. He alleged in his complaint that appellants negligently fastened a rope to the pulley and the shaft on which it revolved, and left it there with a loose, knotted end six or eight inches long, and that while he was in the act of replacing the belt his clothing was caught by the knotted end of the rope, throwing him against the shaft and injuring him. It is also alleged that the rope on the pulley was in a dimly lighted place, that its presence there was not observable without close inspection, and that appellants were also guilty of negligence in failing to warn appellee of the presence of the rope. The testimony adduced at the trial tended to establish the allegations of the complaint and was sufficient for that purpose. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellee, assessing his damages at $500.

It is earnestly insisted that the testimony is insufficient to sustain the charge of negligence; but, as already stated, we are of the opinion that it was legally sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. It is undisputed that the pulley did not fit on the shaft, that it had to be tightened with the rope, and that it was unusual to fasten a rope to the pulley and shaft. There is a conflict in the evidence as to there being a knotted end of the rope extending from the pulley or shaft; but the evidence abundantly establishes the fact, and that it caught appellee's clothing while he was attempting to replace the belt on the pulley. It is true that no one saw the end of the rope catch the clothing, but from the condition of the clothing wrapped around the shaft and rope, and from the position appellee occupied, according to his testimony, the jury could legitimately draw the inference that the injury occurred in that way. The evidence tends to show that it was not proper to have the pulley fastened in that way, that the rope with the knotted, loose end was situated in a dark place, where it could not be readily observed, that it frequently became necessary for an employé to go there to replace the belt, and that its presence there caused the injury to appellee. This was sufficient to make out a charge of culpable negligence on the part of appellants in the discharge of their duty to their employés in the exercise of ordinary care to provide a safe place where they were required to work.

Error is assigned in the giving of the following instruction at the request of appellee: "It was the duty of the defendants to furnish the plaintiff with suitable machinery, tools, and appliances and a safe place for him to work, and the plaintiff had a right to presume that the defendants would do their duty in this respect; so when directed...