Southwestern Gas & Electric Company v. Murdock

Decision Date06 April 1931
Docket Number235
Citation37 S.W.2d 100,183 Ark. 565
PartiesSOUTHWESTERN GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MURDOCK
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Southern District; J. O. Kincannon Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Evans & Evans and Arnold & Arnold, for appellant.

Roy Dunn and John P. Roberts, for appellee.

MEHAFFY J. Mr. Justice SMITH dissents.

OPINION

MEHAFFY, J.

The appellee brought suit in the Logan Circuit Court alleging that on November 10, 1929, while he was in the exercise of due care and was working upon an automobile belonging to Dr. A. R. Hedrick in appellee's garage in Booneville, Arkansas, he received an electric shock, throwing him against the automobile, burning his body, injuring his back and spine, and otherwise injuring him. The negligence alleged is that the appellant neglected and refused to construct the transformers, distributors, and wiring of its electric system so that the wires coming into appellee's garage, instead of carrying 110 voltage, carried more than 350.

Appellant answered, denying all the material allegations in the complaint, and pleaded contributory negligence. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $ 2,000. The case is here on appeal.

Appellant contends first, that the court erred in giving instruction No. 5, because it did not take into consideration the defense of contributory negligence. After a careful examination of the record, we have reached the conclusion that there is no evidence tending to show that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence, and there was therefore no error in giving the above instruction.

It is next contended by the appellant that Murdock was not entitled to recover on account of his own negligence. Contributory negligence, if shown by the evidence, would be a complete bar to appellee's right to recover. Appellant cites numerous cases to support its contention that appellee cannot recover if he was guilty of any negligence. It is unnecessary to discuss these authorities, but sufficient to say that this court has many times held in actions of this character that, if the injured party was guilty of negligence which in any way contributed to his injury, so that but for his contributory negligence the injury would not have happened, he cannot recover.

The only evidence in the record which appellant claims tends to show contributory negligence is the evidence of three witnesses, Roy Cannon, John Adney, and the appellee. There is no evidence in the record tending to show that either Cannon or Adney ever said anything to appellee about the conditions they testified about or that he knew anything about them. Plaintiff's own evidence shows, and this is undisputed, that he had received shocks many times in using the wire when it contained 110 volts. There is nothing in the testimony to show that he either knew of or appreciated any danger. He knew that if there were 110 volts it would sometimes shock one, but also knew that it was not dangerous.

It was the duty of the appellant to furnish proper and safe appliances, and the appellee had a right to assume that appellant had done this, and he was not guilty of negligence contributing to his injury unless he knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, that the appellant had not performed its duty, and the evidence does not show that he knew this. There is no evidence in the record tending to show that he knew of or appreciated the danger. He testified that he talked to the parties after this injury, but there is no evidence that he received any shock prior to the one he complains of in this suit that would indicate there was any danger.

Appellant argues, however, that the lights would burn out and the machinery run faster. Witness testified that about four lights burned out in twenty-four hours, but it was entirely reasonable for him to think this was caused by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • St. Louis- San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bryan
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1938
    ...112 S.W.2d 641 195 Ark. 350 ST. LOUIS- SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY v. BRYAN 4-4886Supreme Court of ArkansasJanuary 17, 1938 ... possible caution." Southwestern G. & E. Co. v ... Murdock, 183 Ark. 565, 567, 37 S.W.2d 100; Union ... ...
  • Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Bianchi
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1939
    ...132 S.W.2d 375 198 Ark. 996 SOUTHWESTERN GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. BIANCHI, ADMX 4-5572Supreme Court of ArkansasOctober 16, 1939 ...           Appeal ... from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood ...          In this ... connection, this case is very similar to that of ... Southwestern Gas & Electric Company v ... Murdock, 183 Ark. 565, 37 S.W.2d 100, in which this ... court said: "If the appellee did what a man of ordinary ... prudence would have done under the ... ...
  • Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Bianchi
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1939
    ...was guilty of contributory negligence. In this connection this case is very similar to that of Southwestern Gas & Electric Company v. Murdock, 183 Ark. 565, 567, 37 S.W.2d 100, 101, in which this court said: "If the appellee did what a man of ordinary prudence would have done under the circ......
  • Martin v. Arkansas Power & Light Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1942
    ... ... damaged portion thereof, DeWitt Martin's arm came in ... contact with an electric house wire under the house [204 Ark ... 42] where they were working, from which he received a ... negligence. We recently said in the case of Southwestern ... Gas & Elec. Co. v. Murdock, 183 Ark. 565, 37 ... S.W.2d 100: "Even if the injured party's act ... ...
  • 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