Case ID: ark_188/html/0568-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kirby, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Spadra Coal Company v. White.
    4-3260
    Opinion delivered January 15, 1934.
    
      
      J. H. Brock and Patterson & Patterson, for appellant.
    
      J. J. Montgomery and Reynolds & Maze, for appellee.
   Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant contends that the court erred in giving said requested instruction No. 5, set out above, and the contention must be sustained. This instruction requires a higher degree of responsibility from employers than the law warrants, placing on the master in effect the absolute duty to furnish a safe place for his servant to work, while under the law he is only bound to the exercise of ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work. It was so held by this court in the case of Fort Smith-Spadra Mining Company v. Shirley, 178 Ark. 1007, 13 S. W. (2d) 14, wherein an instruction almost identical with the one-here was condemned and held to be erroneous.

The error in giving appellee’s instruction No. 5 was not cured by the giving of a correct instruction on the point for appellant, said correct instruction necessarily being in conflict with, and contradictory of, said erroneous instruction of appellee’s. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Horn, 168 Ark. 191, 269 S. W. 576; Bullman Furniture Co. v. Schmuck, 175 Ark. 422, 299 S. W. 738. “Separate and disconnected instructions, each complete, and irreconcilable with each other, cannot be read together so as to modify each other and present a harmonious whole” Temple Cotton Oil Co. v. Skinner, 176 Ark. 17, 2 S. W. (2d) 676.

Neither was appellant required to make a specific objection to the instruction, as it was inherently erroneous; a general objection being sufficient to reach the defect. First National Bank v. Peugh, 160 Ark. 517, 255 S. W. 4.

There are some other objections to the instructions which we do not notice, since they do not appear to have been preserved in the motion for a new trial.

For the error committed in the giving of appellee’s requested instruction No. 5, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.