Smith v. McEachin

Decision Date27 February 1933
Docket Number4-2884
Citation57 S.W.2d 1043,186 Ark. 1132
PartiesSMITH v. MCEACHIN
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; J. Sam Wood, Judge; reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Patterson Patterson & Patterson, for appellant.

Pryor & Pryor, for appellee.

OPINION

BUTLER, J.

The appellant, while engaged in the performance of his duties as an employee of the appellees, suffered an injury which caused the loss of an eye. He brought suit to recover damages alleging that his employers were negligent in failing to provide him reasonably safe instrumentalities with which to perform his labor.

Appellees answered denying negligence and pleading assumed risk and contributory negligence as a bar to recovery. At the conclusion of the testimony, on motion of the appellees, the jury returned a verdict at the direction of the court. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

There is only one question presented for our determination--i. e., was the trial court correct under the evidence adduced in directing a verdict for the appellees? It is a rule of universal application that, where the testimony is undisputed and from it all reasonable minds must draw the same conclusion of fact, it is the duty of the court to declare as a matter of law the conclusion to be reached; but, where there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict, the question must be submitted to the jury. In testing whether or not there is any substantial evidence in a given case, the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom should be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is directed, and, if there is any conflict in the evidence, or where the evidence is not in dispute but is in such a state that fair-minded men might draw different conclusions therefrom, it is error to direct a verdict.

The evidence tended to establish the following facts: Appellant is a "metal cooker," it being his duty to properly melt metal for use in connecting joints in a pipe line. At the time of the injury the appellees were engaged in constructing a water main, and the appellant was employed by them in his usual capacity. The water main consisted of iron pipe which was being laid in a ditch dug for that purpose and, on the occasion of the appellant's injury, the workmen who were engaged in excavating the ditch had been sent to another place, leaving some rock in it. The foreman passed by the place where appellant was working and told him to get an iron or steel maul, which he pointed out, and to remove some rock which was lying in the ditch. In order to do this, it was necessary to shatter the rock. The foreman told the appellant to hurry, and, in obedience to the orders of the foreman, he picked up the maul which was lying about 150 feet from the rock to be broken, and, throwing it on his shoulder, hurriedly went to the place and struck the rock two or three blows. As he struck the last blow, something hit him in the eye, either a fragment of the rock or a sliver from the maul, resulting in the loss of sight in that eye. The appellant had never used a maul of that kind or for that purpose before. At one time about ten or twelve years before the accident he had used a maul or sledge in breaking up rubble while working on a levee. An examination of the maul after the injury showed that it was in a worn condition. The handle was not straight, and the striking face of the maul had been worn, so that it did not have a flat surface, but "was broken all off around the edges of it, and had a little ball in the middle."

The appellant testified that he did not make any examination of the maul at the time he picked it up because he had been told to hurry, and he did not think the foreman would order him to take a tool that he could hurt himself with and so just did not look at it. There was testimony of a witness who had had sixteen years' experience in stone quarries to the effect that it was proper, when the striking face of a maul became battered, to have it redressed so as to make the face of it smooth, as there was a tendency of rock to fly outward to the side when struck by a maul with a smooth face, but that if struck by a battered maul with rounded surface the tendency of the broken...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Members Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blissett
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1973
    ...case from the jury. See Barrentine v. Henry Wrape Company, 120 Ark. 206, 179 S.W. 328, and cases cited therein. Also, in Smith v. McEachin, 186 Ark. 1132, 57 S.W.2d 1043, we said: '. . . In testing whether or not there is any substantial evidence in a given case, the evidence and all reason......
  • Woodmen of World Life Insurance Society v. Reese
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1943
    ... ... so, state which, when, for what length of time. A. Yes, ... Michael Meagher Hospital, Texarkana, Texas. Operation hernia, ... Dr. J. K. Smith.' ...          "Also ... question and answer No. 7: ...          "'7 ... Have you within the past ten years suffered ... St. L., I. M. & M. R. R. Co. v. Coleman, 97 ... Ark. 438, 135 S.W. 338; Kesterson v. Hays, ... 137 Ark. 592, 209 S.W. 721; Smith v ... McEachin, 186 Ark. 1132, 57 S.W.2d 1043; ... Pickens v. Westbrook, 191 Ark. 156, 83 ... S.W.2d 830 ...          Unless, ... therefore, the ... ...
  • Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Reese
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1943
    ...398; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Coleman, 97 Ark. 438, 135 S.W. 338; Kesterson v. Hays, 137 Ark. 592, 209 S.W. 721; Smith v. McEachin, 186 Ark. 1132, 57 S.W.2d 1043; Pickens v. Westbrook, 191 Ark. 156, 83 S.W.2d Unless, therefore, the falsity of these answers has been established by the......
  • Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Spangler, 12570.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 25, 1944
    ...to ordinary observation." Little Rock, M. R. & T. Ry. Co. v. Leverett, 48 Ark. 333, 3 S.W. 50, 55, 3 Am.St.Rep. 230; Smith v. McEachin, 186 Ark. 1132, 57 S.W.2d 1043, 1045. See also St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Rogers, 93 Ark. 564, 126 S.W. 375, 1199; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Webs......
  • 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