Valley Planing Mill Co. v. McDaniel

• Decision Date: 09 November 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 229.)
• Citation: 170 S.W. 994
• Parties: VALLEY PLANING MILL CO. v. McDANIEL.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

170 S.W. 994

VALLEY PLANING MILL CO. v. McDANIEL.

(No. 229.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 9, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Garland County; C. T. Cotham, Judge.

Action by Roy McDaniel, by A. B. McDaniel, his father and next friend, against the Valley Planing Mill Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Martin, Wootton & Martin, of Hot Springs, for appellant. M. S. Cobb, of Hot Springs, for appellee.

HART, J.

The appellant prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment against it for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of its servants. The material facts are as follows:

Appellant was engaged in manufacturing lumber in the city of Hot Springs, and had a dry shed abutting on one of the streets of the city. Its servants loaded a two-wheel truck with lumber ranging in length from 8 to 16 feet. The truck was so loaded that its two ends were nearly evenly balanced, but the rear end was heavier, so that if it was placed on the ground the front end would extend above the ground four or five feet. The truck was left standing in the door of the dry kiln abutting on the street, with the front end extending into the street about three feet. Roy McDaniel, a boy of nine years of age, was walking along the street going to a store on an errand for his mother. He saw the loaded truck and reached up and caught hold of the front end of it. This caused the truck to fall over and crush him to the ground, whereby his leg was broken and he was otherwise severely injured.

In conducting its business appellant's truck would be carried to the door of the dry kiln, and a mule hitched to two wheels would be backed up against the truck and the truck fastened to these wheels with a hook. The lumber would rest on a bolster of the wheels to which the mule was hitched and would be fastened down. When the truck was being hauled away other trucks would be loaded and carried to the door of the dry shed, so that they could be attached to the wheels drawn by the mule.

Witnesses for the plaintiff testified that the proper way to load these trucks was to load them more heavily in front and place a prop under the front end. Witnesses for the defendant said the proper way to load them was to place the heavier part of the load on the rear end, so that end would rest on the ground and the front end would be above the ground, so that the mule attached to the front wheels might be more easily backed under the truck. Be that as it may, the undisputed evidence was that the loaded truck was placed in the door of the dry shed abutting on the street, and that its front end extended out into the street about three feet and was about four feet above the ground, and that the...