Tennyson v. Keef

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MEHAFFY, J.
• Citation: Tennyson v. Keef, 291 S.W. 426, 172 Ark. 877 (Ark. 1927)
• Decision Date: 07 February 1927
• Docket Number: 176
• Parties: TENNYSON v. KEEF

291 S.W. 426

172 Ark. 877

TENNYSON v. KEEF

No. 176

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 7, 1927

Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; J. M. Shinn, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Woods & Greenhaw, for appellant.

V. D Willis and Shouse & Rowland, for appellee.

OPINION

MEHAFFY, J.

The plaintiff commenced this suit in the Boone Circuit Court, for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the appellant and others. It is alleged that the defendant stretched, or caused to be carried and stretched, directly across the public highway, the principal street through the town, a strand of insulated wire, well knowing that said highway was a public thoroughfare, and not regarding their duty in that behalf, and without due and proper care towards the public and the plaintiff; that they stretched or caused to be stretched the wire at a low and dangerous and unlawful place. That plaintiff came along said highway, across which said wire was stretched, and, without knowledge or warning from the defendant or any one, came violently in contact with the wire, through no fault of his own, but by reason of defendant's negligence and carelessness; that plaintiff was in an automobile, and that the wire was hanging at a low and dangerous height from the ground, and, extending directly across the highway, caught plaintiff in the mouth, whereby he was violently thrown from said car to the ground, and received severe injuries. The defendants filed separate answers, denying the material allegations in the complaint. It is unnecessary to set out the testimony at length. It is sufficient to say that there was testimony to the effect that appellant was superintending the work of putting up the wires, was supervising the work. The testimony is conflicting, but we think there was sufficient evidence to submit the question of the appellant's negligence to the jury. There is no testimony that the appellant put up the wire where the appellee was injured, and the only theory on which the appellant could be held liable is that he caused it to be done, or that he was supervising the construction of the wire. This was a question of fact for the jury, and the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed by this court if there is any substantial evidence to support it. The appellant contends that instruction No. 2 given at the request of the appellee, was erroneous, and, for that reason, the case should be reversed. Instruction No. 2 is ambiguous, and should not have been given. It reads as follows:

"Even though you believe from the evidence that the defendant, Tobe Tennyson, and the parties purchasing the electric light system, were constructing the lines in question jointly, that is, if you believe that the defendant, Tennyson, and the purchasers of the electric system, were each and all together constructing the system, and the plaintiff was injured through the negligence of any one of the said parties or any one working under the supervision and direction of the defendant, Tobe Tennyson, then in that event every one interested in supervising and constructing said work would be responsible for such damages as were sustained by their negligence. And the plaintiff has the right to sue either or all of said parties, or

...