Case Name: Pine Bluff Natural Gas Company v. Senyard
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1913-05-12
Citations: 108 Ark. 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pine Bluff Natural Gas Company v. Senyard.
Judges: McCulloch, C. J. and Wood, J. dissent.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 229–241

Head Matter:
Pine Bluff Natural Gas Company v. Senyard.
Opinion delivered May 12, 1913.
Negligence — independent contractor — gas company — injury to person on street. — Defendant, a gas company, under its franchise from a city, possessed the right to lay its pipes in the city streets, but was required not to unnecessarily obstruct the streets. After laying its pipes, defendant contracted with one H to relay the street paving. H, preparatory to relaying the pavement, piled materials in the street to be used in the work. Plaintiff, at night, drove her buggy into a pile of gravel, and was thrown out and injured. Held, in an action against defendant for damages, plaintiff was entitled to recover, although the injury was due to the act of a contractor, on the ground that defendant owed a duty to the public to keep the street in a safe condition, and that the negligence causing the injury was a probable consequence of the work contracted for.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge;
affirmed.
STATEMENT BY" THE COURT.
Mildred Senyard brought this action against the Pine Bluff Natural Gas Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by her while driving along Walnut Street in the city of Pine Bluff at about 8:30 o’clock p. m., and which she alleged were caused by her buggy being overturned by running upon a pile of gravel placed by the defendant in the street. The circumstances attending the injury are as follows:
The city of Pine Bluff granted to the defendant a franchise allowing- it the ' privilege of laying pipes, mains and other appliances in the streets of the city for the purpose of conveying and supplying- natural gas to consumers thereof. The sections of the ordinance granting the franchise which are relevant to the present case are as follows:
“Section 1. That TI. S. Grayson, hereinafter designated as the grantee, be and is hereby granted the privilege and vested with the right to use the streets, lanes,, avenues, alleys, commons, bridges and other public grounds and places within the corporate limits of the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, for the peiiod of thirty (30) years from the date of passage of this ordinance,, for the purpose of laying, maintaining, repairing, reclaiming and removing pipes, mains and other necessary appliances to be used for carrying and conveying natural gas for public and private use in buildings, manufacturing establishments and otherwise within the said city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, together with the right to dig and excavate in all or any of the said streets, lanes, avenues, alleys and other public grounds and places for the purpose of laying and constructing such mains, pipes and other appliances, and removing the same, required to convey and conduct said gas to consumers upon the following conditions:
“Section 3. In the work of laying, repairing, reclaiming and removing said pipes and appliances, the said grantee sliall not unnecessarily obstruct or interfere with the use and occupancy of any streets, lanes, avenues, commons, public grounds or places, and in no wise injure, interfere with or change any existing arrangements for gas, water pipes, drains, sewers, ditches or other public or private works of said town.
“Section 4. Said grantee shall relay and replace with due diligence any and all pavements, curbs, gutters, streets, avenues, alleys and other public grounds and places disturbed by him in the same manner and like conditions as the same may have been before excavating, leaving the surface of all unpaved streets smooth and level; provided, that nothing contained in this section shall authorize any act in violation of any ordinance now in effect or to be hereafter passed by the council of the said city of Pine Bluff, nor prevent said city from replacing any such pavements by its' agents, at the expense of said grantee. Nor shall anything contained in this section be construed on behalf of said city of Pine Bluff as waiving any right now possessed or hereafter to be possessed by said city to exercise full control over all streets, avenues, alleys or other public grounds.
“Section 5. The said grantee shall preserve and keep the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, safe, free and harmless from any damage, costs or expenses that may be incurred or happen to persons or property by reason or on account of anything done by said grantee under the provisions of this ordinance, and shall defend, at his own proper costs, any suits brought against the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by persons or corporations claiming damages or injury on account of the creation and maintenance of the natural gas plant of said grantee. ’ ’
The street on which the injury occurred Aras paved with Avooden blocks. For the purpose of laying its mains, the gas company tore up the street, and dug a trench running north and south on Walnut Street. The trench was dug about ten feet from the east curb ana was about four feet deep and ten inches wide. Tha street was forty feet wide from curb to curb. Tbe blocks taken up were piled between the trench and the east curb of the street. After the gas company had laid its mains, it replaced in the trench or ditch the dirt it had excavated and firmly tamped it. The gas company had entered into a contract with Elson Hale to replace the pavement. This work was accomplished by first spreading a concrete foundation several inches thick over the refilled trench, and then laying the blocks on the concrete foundation. The concrete foundation was made of gravel mixed with cement. To successfully do this, it was necessary to bring the gravel and cement to that part of the street that was being repaired so that they might be mixed as they were spread upon the surface of the street. o Preparatory to doing this work, Hale hauled about a wagon load of gravel and deposited it on the west side of the street next to the curb. He placed some wheelbarrows, which were to be used in the work, on top of the pile of gravel. The pile of gravel was allowed to remain over night without any light or other precaution taken to warn the travelling public that it was there. The gas company placed lights about forty or fifty feet apart along the line of the refilled trench. The gravel was placed in the street about 4 o’clock p. m., on Saturday, the 11th day of February, 1912. About 8:30 o’clock in the evening Mrs. Senyard, the plaintiff, was driving along Walnut Street in a buggy, and when she was between Third and Fourth streets she drove into the pile of gravel and was thrown from her buggy and severely injured.
The evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that it was too dark to see the obstruction, and one of her witnesses stated that upon examination made afterwards, he found that the gravel extended about five feet into the street and that there was hardly room for a vehicle to pass between it and the ditch on the other side. The street in question had a great deal of traffic over it.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.
Coleman & Gantt and Moore, Smith & Moore, for appellant.
Hale was an independent contractor for whose acts appellant was not liable. 32 Ark. L. Rep. 771; 77 Ark. 551; 54 Id. 427; 53 Id. 503; 26 Cyc. 1553; 88 N. W. 741; 49 N. W. 822; 78 Pac. 337; 39 La. Ann. 551; 49 Am. Rep. 113; 98 N. W. 573; 43 S. E. 562; Dillon on Mnn. Corp. (5 ed.), § 1723.
A. E. Rowell, for appellee.
A corporation owing a public duty can not delegate its duties to another and escape liability for negligence. 39 So. 142; 49 N. W. 822; 78 Pac. 337; 16 Wall. 576; 88 N. W. 741; 71 Am. Dec. 285; 63 S. E. 367; 72 Atl. 1069; 20 N. E. 33; 14 L. R. A. 398; 34 S. W. 590; 83 U. S. 566; 27 L*. R. A. 590; 51 Am. Rep. 269; 45 N. E. 668; 153 S. W. 838; 87 S. W. 297; 53 Atl. 807; 150 S. W. 77; 108 Pac. 509; 48 N. E. 66; 87 111. App. 40; 26 Cyc. 1562; 140 S. W. 1197; 55 N. E. 618; 56 Id. 797; 81 Ark. 199; 77 Id. 553; 54 Id. 131; 152 S. W. 148.

Opinion:
Hast, J.,
(after stating the facts). To reverse the judgment, counsel for the defendant invoke the general rule that the employer is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor. They concede that there are exceptions to the general rule, and that one of them is that where a person causing something to be done, the doing of which casts on him a public duty, he can not escape from the responsibility attaching on him of seeing that duty performed by delegating it to a contractor. They do contend, however, that the piling of the gravel in the street without a light was purely collateral to the work contracted to be done, and was entirely the result of the wrongful acts of the contractor, Hale, and therefore he alone is liable. We can not agree with their contention. The city council has entire control of the streets of the city and it was its duty to the public to keep them unobstructed and safe for passage in the ordinary modes of travel.
In recognition of its duty to the public, the city council provided in the ordinance that the defendant, in the work of laying and repairing its pipes and. appliances, should not unnecessarily obstruct or interfere Avith the use of the streets of the city. The defendant when it began the work of tearing up the streets of the city for the purpose of laying its gas mains assumed all the obligations of the city to the public, and it became its duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care in the laying and repairing of its mains so as to prevent such work from obstructing the street or endangering those using it. In Chicago City v. Robbins, 2 Black (U. S.) 418, and again reported under the style of Robbins v. City of Chicago, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 657, Bobbins was held liable for damages by a pedestrian upon the streets of Chicago falling into an area which his contractor had made before a building he Avas erecting in that city. In the first opinion, the court said: "Bobbins' duty was absolute to see that the area dug under his direction and for his benefit should be safely and securely guarded and, failing to do so, his liability attached and the jury should have been told so."
In the opinion on the second appeal, it is said: "The import of the decision of this court in reversing the former judgment of Ihe circuit court, and remanding the cause for a new trial, was that the party contracting for the work Avas liable in a case like the present, where the Avork to be done necessarily constituted an obstruction or defect in the street or highway which rendered it dangerous as a way for travel and transportation, unless properly guarded or shut out from public use; that in such cases the principal for whom the work was done could not defeat the just claim of the corporation or of the injured party by proving that the work which constituted the obstruction or defect Avas done by an independent contractor."
In the case of Hawver v. Whalen, 49 Ohio St. 69, 14 L. R. A. 828, it Avas held that the owner of a city lot, who made an excavation in the sideivalk for coal cellars, to be used in connection with the building, was bound to guard it with ordinary care, and that this duty could not be delegated to an independent contractor employed to construct the cellar. The court said:
"There is much innate justice in a rule of law that declines to permit one who causes work to be done, the performance of which though not necessarily injurious to the persons or property of others, yet necessarily creates conditions inimical to their safety, to exonerate himself from all duty towards those whom he had thus exposed to danger."
In the case of Woodman v. Metropolitan R. R. Co. 149 Mass. 335, 14 Am. St. Rep. 427, the court held:
' ' Where a city railroad company is engaged in laying a track in a public street, and negligently leaves rails projecting beyond a temporary barrier inclosing the place where the track is being laid, it is liable in damages to one, who, travelling at night, and exercising due care, is injured by coming in contact with such projecting rails, notwithstanding the fact that the injury was sustained at other than a regular street crossing, and that the work was being done by an independent contractor. ' '
In the case of Village of Jefferson v. Chapman, 11 Am. St. Rep. 139, the Supreme Court of Illinois said:
"Another exception to the general rule relieving an employer from liability for an injury occasioned by an independent contractor is where the party causing the work to be done is under a primary obligation imposed by law to keep the subject-matter of the work in a safe condition. The principle upon which this exception is predicated is, that where a duty is so imposed, the responsibility for its faithful performance can not be avoided, and that the party under such obligation can not be relieved therefrom by a contract made with another for the performance of such duty."
The facts of the present case, we think, bring it within the exceptions we have noted. Walnut Street was paved with wooden blocks and was a public street over which, there was much travel. The defendant, with its own servants, tore up the street for the purpose of laying its mains, and piled the blocks with which it was paved next to the east curb of the street. After it had laid its mains, and refilled the trench, Hale, under his contract with the defendant, began the work of repaving the street. Before the paving blocks could be replaced in the street it was necessary to prepare and lay a concrete foundation for them to rest upon. The concrete foundation was made by placing a mixture of gravel and cement upon the dirt, and it was necessary that the gravel and cement should .be mixed near the place where it was to be spread upon the surface of the street. To do this, it was also necessary to pile the gravel in the street preparatory to mixing it with the cement for the purpose of constructing the concrete foundation. The piling of the gravel in the street for this purpose necessarily rendered the street unsafe for night travel. This was a condition which did not depend upon the care or negligence of the contractor, but the danger arose from the very nature of the work contracted for and could only be averted by placing lights or danger signals to warn those travelling the street at night that the obstruction was there. That is to say, the performance of the work in the usual and only practical way it could be performed, necessarily created a condition which would bring wrongful consequences unless guarded against, and inasmuch as the contract could not have been performed by Hale except under the right of the defendant, the defendant was under a primary obligation imposed by law to keep in safe condition the subject-matter of the work, which in this instance was the street. The injury sustained was caused by the gravel, which had been left in the street, and which came within the duty of the defendant to persons travelling on the streets to see that they were kept safe.
In such a case, the responsibility for the faithful performance of the work can not be avoided, and the defendant being under such obligation can not be re lievecl therefrom by a contract made with another for the performance of that duty. In cases like the present, where the employer owes a public duty to keep the subject-matter of the work in safe condition, it is only where the negligence complained of is entirely collateral to and not a probable consequence of the work contracted for that the employer can escape liability; and we hold that the negligence complained of was not collateral. The question of negligence was submitted to the jury under proper instructions and the judgment will be affirmed.
McCulloch, C. J. and Wood, J. dissent.