Sun Oil Co. v. Hedge
Decision Date | 18 April 1927 |
Docket Number | 373 |
Citation | 293 S.W. 9,173 Ark. 729 |
Parties | SUN OIL COMPANY v. HEDGE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; James H. McCollum, Judge affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This appeal is prosecuted by the Sun Oil Company from a judgment for $ 3,000 damages returned against it in favor of Ben Hedge, on account of a personal injury received by said Hedge while in the employ of the said oil company.
Complaint alleges that plaintiff, with his crew of four other employees, was engaged in "throwing" a gas-trap that is, stripping the flow- line connection from the gas-trap, the gas-trap being a pipe about 70 feet long, set on the ground in a vertical position, and used to separate the oil from the gas. It was held in position by four guy-wires fastened near the top and extending in different directions to the ground where they were fastened. That, to remove the trap, it was necessary to unfasten the guy-wires from the bottom and throw the trap in the direction in which it was to fall. That, to do this, it was necessary to hold the guy-wires after they were unfastened until a given signal from the plaintiff, when it was their duty immediately to release the guy-wires, so that the plaintiff could pull the trap in the direction in which it was to fall. Two of such traps had been removed, and plaintiff and his co-employees were engaged in removing the third when the injury complained of occurred. That the guy-wire to said trap had been unfastened at the bottom and plaintiff's co-employees had hold of them when plaintiff gave the signal for them to release the guy-wires; that his co- employees failed and neglected to immediately release said guys as directed by plaintiff, and, as a result thereof, the trap was swerved from the course in which it was intended to fall, in a northerly direction, causing a tree to intervene between the point where the trap fell and where it should and would have fallen if plaintiff's co-employees had released the guy-wires as they were directed and as it was their duty to do. That, by reason of the falling of the trap at the point where it did fall and the intervention of the tree between the point and the point where the plaintiff was standing and where the trap should have fallen, the guy-wire which the plaintiff had hold of, and by which he was attempting to guide the fall of the trap, was drawn around and against said tree in such a manner that, when it was tautened, it struck the plaintiff in the abdomen and side, breaking two of his ribs and severely bruising and injuring him in the abdomen and side. That, if the plaintiff's co-employees had released the said guy-wires as it was their duty to do, said trap, by the guidance of the plaintiff, would have fallen at a point where such an injury as occurred to plaintiff could not have happened, and that said injury was due solely to the negligence of plaintiff's co-employees by failing to release the wires which they held, as they were instructed to do.
It states further that the defendant company caused him to be treated by its physician; that he remained in the hospital for four days, suffering severe pains in his abdomen and side; and that he was unable to work for thirty days, after which he was given a pumping job requiring no great exertion and he continued at that work until the 15th of the following May. That thereafter he began to suffer severe pains in his bowels, and any exertion requiring the exercise of the muscles of the abdomen caused him intense pain, and that the condition finally became worse and became so aggravated that he was rendered incapable of performing any manual labor, and that he had to undergo an operation in order to get relief. He was operated on in January, 1925, when it was discovered that his injury had resulted in adhesions of the liver, stomach, intestines and gall bladder. Since the operation he has only suffered slight and dull pains in the region of one of the floating ribs. That two of the ribs are crooked since healing to such an extent that they materially interfere with the normal operation of his body, and that he suffered much pain, lost 30 days from work following the injury, and has ever since been incapacitated from performing his usual and customary work. That he was a strong, able-bodied man, 28 years old, earning $ 180 per month at the time of the injury, and had expended $ 500 on account thereof.
The answer denies every material allegation of the complaint. Denies that the guy-wires attached to the trap had all been unfastened at the bottom before plaintiff gave the signal for the men to release them; denies specifically that allegation of the complaint relating thereto, that the injury occurred as stated, and that it was due solely to the negligence of the plaintiff's co-employees by failing to release the guy-wire which they held as they were directed to do; admitted that plaintiff worked for the company subsequent to his injury until the 15th day of the following May; alleged that injury resulted from his own carelessness and negligence, being the foreman in charge at the time of his alleged injury, wholly failed to take the proper precautions in dismantling said gas trap, or in attempting to throw the said gas-trap to the ground; that he, the said plaintiff, did not require his men to unfasten the guy-wires which were wrapped around trees, eight or ten feet from the gas-trap, before ordering the trap to be thrown to the ground; also pleaded contributory negligence and assumed risk, and a full release from all liability, executed by plaintiff on the 16th day of March, 1923.
The testimony tends to show that plaintiff was the gang pusher of the pipe-line crew and foreman to direct the work over the men, and, if necessary, to help in performing the labor; was engaged in throwing gas-traps, as alleged in the complaint, when the injury occurred, and had been engaged in that work for 12 or 15 days; had thrown two traps of the same kind as the one by which he was injured and two of other styles. He described the occurrence as follows:
Plaintiff stated that the guy-wires had been released and unloosed except just enough to hold until he gave the signal to let go; that all the other men were in sight but one when he gave the signal, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. Lanza
... ... Chapman v. Henderson, 188 Ark. 714, 720, 67 S.W.2d 570; Covington v. Little Fay Oil Company, 178 Ark. 1046, 1051, 13 S.W. 2d 306; Sun Oil Company v. Hedge, 173 Ark. 729, 740, 293 S.W. 9 ... Contributory negligence is the doing of something by the plaintiffs which a person exercising ordinary care and prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or the failure of the plaintiffs to do something which a person ... ...
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilson
... ... Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. Higgins, 44 Ark. 293; A. L. Clark Lumber Co. v. Johns, 98 Ark. 211, 135 S. W. 892. In such case the answer "is deemed controverted in legal contemplation as though by a direct denial of the allegation or an avoidance of its effect." Sun Oil Company v. Hedge, 173 Ark. 729, 738, 293 S. W. 9, 13. In any event, we think that, if the filing of a reply setting up in terms the estoppel claimed was not absolutely prohibited, the failure to file was at least excused by the 41 F.2d 325 rules of pleading which prevail in the state where the action was ... ...
-
Phillips v. Morton Frozen Foods
... ... v. Harmon, (1938) 196 Ark. 417, 118 S.W.2d 239; Carson v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., (1938) 196 Ark. 163, 117 S.W.2d 39 ... In all cases, it is necessary that the defense of assumption of risk be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, Sun Oil Co. v. Hedge, (1927) 173 Ark. 729, 293 S.W. 9, and defendant has clearly failed to establish knowledge and understanding of the danger on the part of plaintiff. There is no evidence in the record that plaintiff, prior to the accident, either observed or was made aware of the fact that oil leakage was common in ... ...
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Sanford
... ... L. I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Carter, 93 Ark. 589, 126 S.W ... 99. Among the later cases approving the doctrine announced in ... the Hambright case, supra, are the cases of ... Newsum, etc. Co. v. Shoemaker, 173 Ark ... 872, 294 S.W. 11; Sun Oil Co. v. Hedge, 173 ... Ark. 729, 293 S.W. 9; F. Kiech Mfg. Co. v ... James, 164 Ark. 137, 261 S.W. 24; Mo. Pac. Ry ... Co. v. Elvins, 176 Ark. 737, 4 S.W.2d 528 ... The ... court submitted the foregoing question to the jury under ... proper instructions, but on the degree of proof ... ...