Court Opinion

ID: 7821841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:57:16.302608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:45.442864
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the result reached by the majority even if the facts set out in the opinion are the only ones to be considered. It is not pointed out in the opinion but two other witnesses testified substantially the same as witness McLin that the end of the beam fell 2-1/2 to 3 feet; also, that the only way it could fall was to have slack in the choke line. Returning to the statements of McLin, as quoted in the majority opinion, it is obvious that he felt that the crane operator slacked off on the line. All of the testimony indicates that the operator was not signaled to slack off on the line at any time until after the appellant had fallen. The most that can be said is that McLin’s answer is subject to either of two reasonable interpretations. It was either the fault of the crane operator in letting slack in the line or the fault of the machine in failing to hold the line steady. In Jackson v. McCuiston, 247 Ark. 862, 448 S.W. 2d 33 (1969), we stated: If the evidence permits of more than one reasonable conclusion, that conclusion is for the jury and not the court. I cannot agree with the majority that the question and answer quoted in the opinion is all the evidence which could be considered on behalf of the appellant. If the trial court is upheld on the summary judgment in favor of Freddie May, certainly the Jones Mechanical Contractors would not be liable. Since I do not believe it was proper to direct a verdict in favor of the crane operator, it would be necessary to consider his employment status. There is no dispute of the fact that the crane being used at the time of this occurrence was leased from Jones Mechanical Contractors. Neither is it disputed that the operators of the crane were obtained through Jones Mechanical. The engineer for Georgia Pacific testified that he called Jones and Jones did furnish the operators. He stated the operator on duty at the time of the occurrence was employed by Mr. Jones doing business as Jones Mechanical. He further testified that he reimbursed Jones for the salary of the crane operators every two weeks and that all of the crane operators, except the one on duty at the time of this incident, were terminated because they were not operating the crane safely. He stated he did not make that determination. This, of course, implies that Jones made the determination since Jones was their general employer and the one who paid them. It seems to me that the law is well stated in AMI 702 which reads: An employee is acting within the scope of his employment if he is engaged in the transaction of business which has been assigned to him by his employer or if he is doing anything which may reasonably be said to have been contemplated as a part of his employment and is in furtherance of his principal’s interest, even though it was not expressly authorized and may have been specifically forbidden. It is readily apparent that the crane operator was furthering the business of his employer while he was erecting the steel for the other parties. It seems to me that Restatement of Agency 2d, sec. 227, p. 501 correctly sums up the employment situation when it states: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is an inference that the actor remains in his general employment so long as, by the service rendered and other, he is performing the business intrusted to him by the general employer. I would reverse and remand because there is evidence of a substantial nature tending to show negligence by the crane operator and that his general employer retained control over him. Further, the evidence may well have been strengthened by the defense witnesses and proof. Adkisson, C.J. and Hays, J., join in this dissent.