Court Opinion

ID: 7807259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:08:03.160852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:21.803378
License: Public Domain

Kirby, J., (after stating the facts). The appellee’s right to recover does not appear to be seriously controverted, but appellant contends strenuously that it is not liable for the injury. It insists that the testimony of the witnesses relating to the conference with Clayton and the alleged agreement by him for the railroad company to remove the piling and allow the dredge boat to cross under the trestle, if the ditching contractors would change the line of the ditch to a right angle and cross there instead of as surveyed, was incompetent and prejudicial. It is true the officials of the railroad company, having the authority to make such an agreement, testified that Mr. Clayton, the engineer who held the conference with the ditching contractors relative to the crossing of the railroad track, was without any authority to agree for the railroad company to remove the piling in consideration for having the 'ditch or canal put through the railroad right-of-way at right angles rather than as planned, but all admit that the conference was held and that Clayton reported that the ditching contractors had agreed to the ■suggestion of putting the ditch or canal through the right-of-way at right angles and under the trestle. In any event, on the day which was agreed upon by the general superintendent, at McGehee, with Mr. Carter, of the ditching contractors, Sunday, March 30, the railroad company had its wrecking and bridge crews on hand to assist in the crossing of its track by the dredge boat. It removed the deck of the bridge, and, in fact, engaged under the direction of its superintendent of the bridge and building department in helping to remove the piling with its wrecking outfit, and it is not material whether it had agreed to remove the piling or not, since it was there engaged in the work. Both the defendants, Hahn & Carter and the railroad company, were engaged in the work of removing the piling at the time of the explosion and injury to the appellee, and both deny having caused it. Each insists that it was the other’s duty, and that the other alone was engaged in removing the piling, and that it was assisting for accommodation purely.  (1) It does not appear to us important whether there was an 'agreement on the part of the railroad company to remove the piling or not, for it sent its bridge and wrecking crew out there for the purpose of allowing the dredge-boat to go through, and these crews were engaged in the actual work of removing the piling, and it was within the scope of their employment to use any method chosen by them as best suited for the purpose, and whether the railroad company agreed beforehand to remove it or voluntarily undertook to do it after it became apparent that it was necessary to facilitate the work, can make no difference in appellee’s right to recover, if they were responsible for the wrongful act which caused his injury.  (2) Mr. Land, the railroad company’s superintendent, admits that he suggested that dynamite should be used, and, although he denies having directed its use, no one else -suggested it, and Franklin swears that Land asked for the dynamite, which he procured for him, and then asked if he could get some one to shoot it, and that Franklin, at his suggestion, called for Jones, the negro shot-firer, who “was standing in the crowd of onlookers with his Sunday clothes on, ’ ’ to come 'and do the shooting. It is undisputed that Jones took the dynamite and prepared the shot that caused the injury, with the help of another negro, and fired it. Whose servant was he ? He had been shooting dynamite for Hahn & Carter for some days before this,, and afterward he was in their employ, but these facts alone could not make them responsible for the injury resulting from the explosion. The negro Jones did not volunteer to use the dynamite, took it after it had been procured at the request of the bridge superintendent, and also was asked to shoot it at his request. Franklin’s statement was denied by Land, and it was the province of the jury to decide the question, and they could have found that the railroad company was engaged in removing the piling whether on its own account or in assisting Hahn & Carter to facilitate the passing of the boat through its right-of-way, and that the dynamite was exploded by the direction of its superintendent, and that it was liable for the injury caused thereby. The man who fired the dynamite being at work under the direction of the railroad company at the time determines its liability. Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Miller, 105 Ark. 477. Instruction numbered 4, complained of, told the jury that if the person in charge of the railroad employees and machinery undertook the work of removing the piling, and in so doing used dynamite by the direction of the servant of the railroad company, they should find it liable; but if the jury did not find this fact, as it could have done from the testimony, then to find in favor of the railroad company, and thus submitted fairly the issue to the jury. Under the circumstances, it could not have been influenced, and it did not make any difference whether there was an agreement by Clayton, the engineer of the company, with Hahn & Carter, the ditch contractors, to remove the piling or not, because its servants were actually engaged in the work of removing it, which was within the scope of their employment, and used the dynamite, the explosion of which caused the injury, in furtherance of that purpose. Other questions are raised, but we do not find it necessary to discuss them. We find.no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.