Ray v. Hutchison
Decision Date | 25 April 1933 |
Citation | 68 S.W.2d 948 |
Parties | RAY v. HUTCHISON. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Kannard & Kannard, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error Ray.
Lee Douglas and C. Wade Wilkes, both of Nashville, for defendant in error Hutchison.
This action was instituted in the circuit court of Davidson county by Clarence Ray, a boy between four and five years of age, suing by his mother, Minnie Ray, as next friend, against Albert W. Hutchison, to recover $5,000 as damages for personal injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff as the result of alleged negligence of the defendant.
The case went to trial before a jury in the Second circuit court of Davidson county on the issues made by the defendant's plea of not guilty to the plaintiff's declaration, and, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence in chief, the court, on motion of the defendant, gave the jury peremptory instructions to return a verdict for the defendant, which was done by the jury, and the court thereupon dismissed plaintiff's suit, at the cost of the plaintiff.
A motion for a new trial on behalf of plaintiff was made and overruled, and thereupon plaintiff prayed, obtained, and perfected an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court, and is here insisting, through his assignments of error, that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion for a directed verdict and dismissing plaintiff's action.
In the trial court, the plaintiff sought to predicate his cause of action upon the "attractive nuisance doctrine." The averments of his declaration are as follows:
During the period of time covered by the events involved in this case, the plaintiff's witness Frank Douglas occupied, as a tenant, a house and lot known as No. 1820 Cedar street in the city of Nashville. This lot was on the north side of Cedar street — the general direction of Cedar street being east and west — and the house in which Douglas lived was on the south end of the lot, fronting on Cedar street, and the lot was about 30 feet wide and extended northward between parallel lines to an alley in the rear, which alley connected Nineteenth avenue on the east with Twentieth avenue on the west.
Plaintiff lived with his mother in a small house which fronted on the aforesaid alley at the rear, or north, end of the lot numbered 1816 Cedar street. There was a vacant lot about 30 feet wide between the home of plaintiff and the aforesaid Frank Douglas lot, and there was a fence along the entire west line of the Douglas lot from Cedar street to the alley, but otherwise the locus in quo was unfenced. The fence just mentioned was about 100 feet from and west of 19th Avenue.
The Frank Douglas lot was in a thickly settled residence neighborhood; that is to say, there were homes in which many children, both white and colored, lived in close proximity thereto, along Cedar street, Nineteenth avenue, and the north side of the alley before mentioned.
In the spring of 1931, probably beginning in March, defendant, Hutchison, pursuant to a rental contract with Frank Douglas, stored about seventy-two "wooden horses" and some mortar boards and other lumber in the vacant "back yard" of the Frank Douglas lot before described. So far as appears, the defendant did not supervise or assist in the placing of these materials on the Douglas lot, but they were brought there in defendant's truck by John Nelson and "stacked" by Frank Douglas and John Nelson, both of whom were employees of defendant Hutchison.
According to the testimony of plaintiff's witness Frank Douglas, he had had thirty-three years' experience in stacking lumber, and John Nelson had experience in stacking lumber. Douglas states that he was there when each load was brought and stacked, and his testimony as to the manner in which it was all stacked is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neal v. Home Builders, Inc.
...carpenters and others, and are not inherently dangerous instrumentalities within the attractive nuisance doctrine. Ray v. Hutchison, 1933, 17 Tenn.App. 477, 68 S.W.2d 948, 954. A stationary barn ladder which came apart causing injury to an employee was held not to be a 'dangerous instrument......
-
Overstreet v. Shoney's
...scope of the witness's direct examination. See Sands v. Southern Ry., 108 Tenn. 1, 9, 64 S.W. 478, 480 (1901); Ray v. Hutchison, 17 Tenn. App. 477, 483, 68 S.W.2d 948, 952 (1933). Thus, litigants may prove elements of their own case during the cross-examination of their opponent's witnesses......
-
Anderson v. Peters
...7 Tenn. App. 555; DuPont Rayon Co. v. Roberson, 12 Tenn.App. 261; City of Memphis v. Trice, Adm'r, 13 Tenn.App. 607; Ray v. Hutchison, 17 Tenn.App. 477, 68 S.W.2d 948; McCay v. Du Pont Rayon Co., 20 Tenn.App. 157, 96 S.W.2d Speaking of the attractive nuisance doctrine this court in Ray v. H......
-
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Counts
...is one involving a common and obvious danger. Pardue v. City of Sweetwater, 54 Tenn.App. 286, 390 S.W.2d 683 (1965); Ray v. Hutchison, 17 Tenn.App. 477, 68 S.W.2d 948 (1933). The danger of drowning incident to an ordinary pond or other body of water not characterized by an unusual or hidden......