Court Opinion

ID: 7815226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:33:42.834093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:37.586380
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. In my opinion, the Court should have directed a verdict for the defendant, Hobbs Western Tie Company. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines negligence as: ‘ ‘ The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Such an omission by a reasonable person, to use that degree of care, diligence, and skill which it was his legal duty to use for the protection of another person from injury as, in a natural and continuous sequence, causes unintended injury to the latter. # # # Negligence, in its civil relation, is such an inadvertent imperfection, by a responsible human agent, in the discharge of a legal duty, as immediately produces, in an ordinary and natural sequence, a damage to another.” I am unable to see that the injury which occurred to Mrs. Orahood was one that Lester Quarles, foreman for Hobbs Western, conld reasonably foresee to be a result of Ms directing the truck to be parked in a manner in wMeb it partly protruded into the road. Let it be borne in mind that the parking of the truck is not what occasioned the injury. The injury was caused by a tie falling from the vehicle, and the placing of the truck in that location was not the proximate cause of the accident; it might be otherwise if a vehicle, traveling the road, had struck the truck, which protruded into the highway. In other words, at the time of directing the location for the parking of the truck, Quarles reasonably could not foresee that those in charge of the truck would permit a tie to fall off at the same time a pedestrian walked by — and that such pedestrian would be walking close enough to the truck to be struck. The record shows that this manner of unloading had been used for a long period of time, apparently without mishap to anyone. I cannot agree that Quarles was guilty of negligence. As stated in American Jurisprudence, Vol. 25, Sec. 307: “One of the uses, and the temporary obstruction incident thereto, to which streets, roads, and sidewalks are lawfully subject as of necessity is the loading or unloading of goods in the course of the transportation or delivery thereof to or from the abutting premises, including, as incidental thereto, the right to deposit such goods temporarily in the street or road, or on the sidewalk.” In the next place, I consider this case to be controlled by our decision in Leonard v. Standard Lumber Company, 196 Ark. 800, 120 S. W. 2d 5. In that case, Leonard drove his truck onto the premises of Standard Lumber Company, and stopped at a point designated by Standard’s agent, in order to unload the lumber. Another truck, driven by one Johnson, with a load of lum-her, entered the driveway, and parked opposite from the first truck, also for the purpose of unloading. When Leonard finished unloading, he went to the rear and pulled the standard from the cup, to place it in a box, used for that purpose, to prevent losing it when moving while empty. While removing the standard, with his back to the second truck, the lumber fell from the latter, struck appellant, and severely injured him. The lower court gave an instructed verdict, for the Standard Lumber Company, and Leonard appealed, contending that a jury question was made by the testimony. This Court said: “* * # The undisputed proof shows that appellee’s agent did not exercise any control over the manner of the unloading of the trucks by the truck drivers, but only directed that the lumber be stacked orderly on the platform after it was taken from the truck, and where it should be stacked.1 There is no evidence that appellee’s agent knew anything about the condition of Johnson’s truck and the placing of Johnson’s truck in close proximity to that of appellant was as observable to appellant as it was to appellee’s agent. Even if appellee’s agent had known of the defective condition of Johnson’s truck, it could not change the situation for neither Johnson nor appellant were employees of appellee, and no relationship existed that would authorize the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior. # * ‘When the injury is the result solely of the negligent act of a third person, who does not stand in such a relation to the defendant as to render the doctrine of respondeat superior applicable, no liability attaches to defendant.’ * * *” Here, Quarles had nothing to do with the unloading, but only graded the ties after they were removed by the truck driver and his assistant from the vehicle. I find no Arkansas case which holds this to be sufficient control to constitute liability. Let us say that a home owner purchases a load of dirt for the purpose of filling in his yard. The truck arrives, and the home owner points out the spot in the yard, near the street, where he desires the dirt to be placed, and tells the driver to park his truck at the edge of the yard, (still in the street) from which point the dirt can be unloaded in the desired location. This is done, and a pedestrian, using the street, walks by. The truck driver, in negligently unloading the dirt, permits part to fall on the pedestrian and injure him. According to my interpretation of the holding of the majority, this act of directing the driver to stop at the place most convenient for unloading the dirt, would render the home owner liable. I would conclude that hereafter, people who desire to fill in their yards, had best permit the heavy, loaded truck to be driven onto the premises. (This probably would require another load of dirt to fill in where the truck had been parked.) For that matter, if the home owner directs the truck driver to park in his yard, and an injury occurs, he may well be liable under the opinion of the majority, for under the principle enumerated therein, in telling the driver where to park, the truck is placed under his control. Appellant, Hobbs Western, moved for an instructed verdict, and under the above reasoning, I feel it was entitled to same. Certainly it was not bound by the statement made by Mr. Quarles, mentioned in the majority opinion. This statement was made one year after the accident occurred, and after Quarles had ceased working for Hobbs Western. In addition, it was only an opinion, stating no facts upon which it was based, and I consider it inadmissible, as to the company. For the reasons herein enumerated, I respectfully dissent. Justice George Rose Smith joins in this dissent.   Emphasis supplied.