Court Opinion

ID: 9774851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:35:36.331497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:16.914604
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I concur in the affirmance of the judgment as to Marge Womack. The pistol she carried in her purse was a dangerous instrumentality. See dissenting opinion in Purtle v. Shelton, 251 Ark. 519, 474 S.W. 2d 123 (per Fogleman, J.) and cases cited therein. See also, Williams v. Davidson, 241 Ark. 699, 409 S.W. 2d 311. One handling such instrumentalities must take every precaution to reasonably assure the safety of any persons lawfully coming into proximity with it. Hobbs Western Tie Company v. Orahood, 229 Ark. 241, 315 S.W. 2d 930. See also, Manning v. Jones, 95 Ark. 359, 129 S.W. 791. Mrs. Womack’s conduct in failing to check the safety on the weapon and in leaving her purse on the floor near the table did not meet that standard, particularly if those at the table were, as might be inferred from some of the testimony, intoxicated and boisterous. Jordan’s liability is quite a different matter. As to him, I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice George Rose Smith. I am authorized to state that the Chief Justice joins in this opinion.