Pittsburg Reduction Co. v. Horton

• Decision Date: 02 November 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 647
• Parties: PITTSBURG REDUCTION CO. et al. v. HORTON.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

113 S.W. 647

PITTSBURG REDUCTION CO. et al. v. HORTON.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 2, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; W. H. Evans, Judge.

Action by John A. Horton, by next friend, against the Pittsburg Reduction Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and action dismissed.

This was an action brought by John A. Horton, by his next friend, S. A. Horton, against the Pittsburg Reduction Company and C. C. Brazil, to recover damages for an injury sustained by him caused by the explosion of a dynamite cap in his left hand.

The Pittsburg Reduction Company was engaged in mining bauxite at the town of Bauxite, in Saline county, Ark. Its plant consisted of mineral land, houses, sheds, machinery, and spur tracks from the railroad etc., which were used in its business. Its plant was near the public schoolhouse, and a large proportion of the school children of the neighborhood passed by its sheds, machine and toolhouses, and spur railroad tracks in going to and from school. Appellant company owned the land surrounding and upon which its shops, machine and toolhouses, and spur railroad tracks were situated. It also had a number of tenement houses on said lands for dwelling houses for its employés. The spur railroad track passed between its main shed and toolhouse, and very close to the toolhouse on the east. There was no inclosure around the sheds, machine and toolhouses, or spur track. There was a path along the spur track, which was habitually used by the children of the neighborhood in going to and from school. This was the condition of affairs at the time of the accident, and such condition was known to appellant company. The cap which did the damage was picked up by Charlie Copple, a boy about 10 years of age, at the edge of the spur track near the end of the toolhouse of appellant company. The caps were in a tin snuff box and were made of brass or copper. They were very much like small metal cartridges and appeared to be empty except of dirt. The Copple boy picked them up on his way home from school and carried them home. He lived with his parents about one-fourth of a mile distant. His father was an employé of another company, which had a plant for mining bauxite near that of appellant company. Charlie Copple kept the caps at home for about one week, playing on the floor with them in the presence of his parents. When he would leave them on the floor, his mother said she would pick them up. She said she did not know what they were. She said that Charlie Copple had them there in the house, and that she supposed her husband noticed him with them. The father denied knowing that his boy had the caps until he heard of it after the accident happened. Charlie Copple said that, when not playing with them, they were left on the clock shelf. About one week after he had found them, Charlie carried them to school and traded them to Jack Horton for some writing paper. Jack Horton was a boy 13 years old. He was in the schoolhouse at the time he was hurt. He said he thought it was a shell of a 22 cartridge that had been shot; that he was picking the dirt out of it with a match when it exploded and tore up his hand. His hand was torn so that it had to be amputated. There is a great deal of testimony relative to the manner by which the caps came on the spur track, where Charlie Copple picked them up, but the view we have taken of the case renders it unnecessary to abstract it, except to say that it may be assumed that appellant C. C. Brazil, the general foreman of appellant company, threw them there from the toolhouse thinking they were empty. There was a jury trial and a verdict against both appellants for $2,000. They have appealed to this court.

Mehaffy, Armstead & Williams and Murphy, Coleman & Lewis, for appellants. W. R. Danham and Wood & Henderson, for appellee.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is a well-settled general rule that, when a defendant has violated a duty imposed upon him by the common law, he should be held to be liable to every person injured whose injury is the natural and probable consequence of the misconduct. Hence in our consideration of this case we are first met with the proposition of whether or not the negligence of appellants in leaving the dynamite caps near the spur track, which was frequented by...