Court Opinion

ID: 9645884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:38:53.270648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:11.205361
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Associate Justice, dissenting. It is my best judgment that the cause of action should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. My reasons are briefly hereafter stated. The trial court submitted to the jury two theories upon which to find appellants liable: (a) one was that appellants’ agent, Davenport, was negligent in driving his automobile close to where the excavation gave way knowing that the ground was soaked by reason of excessive rains and, therefore, liable to cause the high, steep bank to collapse; (b) the other was that Davenport was negligent in not stopping all work until the defect was remedied. (a) I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly submitted this issue to the jury, and further agree that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that Davenport was negligent. (b) A careful reading of all the record convinces me that there is no substantial evidence in the record justifying the trial court’s submission of this issue to the jury. Summarily stated, set out below are the facts and circumstances relative to this issue. On Thursday afternoon Davenport detected the unstable condition of the excavation, inquired of the contractor’s representative whether or not he had obtained the approval of the Safety Department of the Department ■of Labor, expressed his disapproval, and then very promptly telephoned Mr. Pugh, Vice President of the Prime Contractor at Shreveport, Louisiana. Davenport told Mr. Pugh of the condition and advised immediate action on his part. The result was that Mr. Pugh sent their regular Superintendent to Little Bock, arriving on the following morning (Friday) to take over the management of the job. At that time there had been no collapse. The new representative of the Prime Contractor (a Mr. Wright) immediately conferred with an agent of appellant who pointed ont the defects of the work, and Mr. Wright promised to take care of the situation. The following day, Saturday, no work was done on the excavation, and none was done on Sunday. On Monday morning, at 8 o ’clock, work was resumed under the supervision of Mr. Wright who had all the shoring removed without telling Davenport. A short time later that morning, about the time Davenport appeared on the scene, the wall caved in on the workmen. What I cannot understand, and the majority do not point out, is how any negligence can be imputed to Davenport or the appellants. The majority do point out that appellants were paid a substantial fee and thereby appear to infer that Davenport should have taken over the operation, but in this connection two other things must be considered. One is that appellants had many other duties to perform under its contract of employment. The other is that the Prime Contractor, under the terms of its contract, was specifically charged with the duties which the majority would impose on appellants. In part this contract reads: “Each contractor shall be responsible for his own work and every part thereof, and all work of every description used in connection therewith. He shall specifically assume, and does assume, all risk of damage or injury from whatever cause to property or persons. . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Not only so, but a witness for appellees (the Chief Safety Engineer for the Arkansas Department of Labor) stated that he looks to the Prime Contractor to make the job safe and not to the architects or a subcontractor. Since there is no substantial evidence in the record to contradict the above factual situation it was, in my opinion, error for the trial court to permit the jury to base a finding of negligence on this point. Since there is no way for this court to determine on what ground the jury based its verdict, the cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.