{ "id": 1589472, "name": "Hollingshead v. American Railway Express Company", "name_abbreviation": "Hollingshead v. American Railway Express Co.", "decision_date": "1920-04-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "422", "last_page": "424", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "143 Ark. 422" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "204 S. W. 310", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "135 Ark. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1571558 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/135/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ark. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1351989 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/103/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 Ark. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1550268 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/127/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ark. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1354026 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/102/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 Ark. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1546852 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/93/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ark. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1351989 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/103/0509-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 325, "char_count": 5173, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.642137631490024e-08, "percentile": 0.40504214724487797 }, "sha256": "03a2456ebf1b63ce18d7692d9c3139583863459f88e3a4e2f435c059dcefdcbf", "simhash": "1:6e2fa5a83e1ed67c", "word_count": 904 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:12.961410+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Hollingshead v. American Railway Express Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellant instituted suit against appellee in the White Circuit Court to recover damages for an injury to his hand, inflicted by the alleged negligent act of a fellow servant in carelessly shoving or turning loose a barrel of coca-cola when unloading same out of an express car onto a truck at Kensett, Arkansas.\nAppellee filed answer, denying that its employee, or messenger, unloaded the barrel of coca-cola in a careless or negligent manner, as alleged in the complaint, and, as an additional defense, alleged that appellant assumed the risk incident to unloading the barrel containing the coca-cola.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed a verdict for appellee and rendered judgment thereon, dismissing the complaint, from which judgment an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.\nThe theory upon which the verdict was instructed and judgment rendered was that the undisputed evidence disclosed that appellee\u2019s messenger was guilty of no negligence in unloading the barrel, and that the injury resulted from the risk assumed by appellant incident to the task.\nThe evidence disclosed that the usual method of unloading barrels of this character was for the messenger to roll the barrel to the door and set it on end, then help hand or slide it down on the truck about two feet below the car door sill with the assistance of the receiving party standing on the truck; that such barrels weigh about 200 pounds and are too heavy for one man to handle. Appellant testified, in substance, that in this particular instance, the messenger either shoved the barrel out of the door or turned it loose as it was coining out, in such manner that when the bottom end hit the truck, the top end fell back against the iron door sill and caught his left hand between the barrel and sill, crushing and mangling his fingers; that, as the barrel came out of the door, he caught hold of it, thinking the messenger was going to hold it, but, as he reached and got a half-hold on it, the messenger turned it loose.\nThe evidence just detailed tended to show that the injury to appellant\u2019s hand resulted from the negligence of a fellow servant in the employ of the appellee; and also tended to show that it was inflicted suddenly and before appellant appreciated, or could, in the exercise of ordinary care, appreciate, the danger incident to reaching for and trying to catch the barrel. Under the rules announced in St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Burdg, 93 Ark. 88, and reiterated in St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 102 Ark. 562; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 103 Ark. 509. and Johnson v. Plunkett-Jarrell Grocer Co., 127 Ark. 243, that companies of the character of appellee are \u201cresponsible to a servant who, while exercising due care for his own safety, is injured by the negligent act of a fellow servant, the same as if the negligence was that of the master,\u201d and that \u201ca servant does not assume the risk of injury caused by the negligent act of a fellow servant until he obtains knowledge of, and appreciates the danger incident to a continuation of his services,\u201d as applied to the facts in the instant case, justified the submission to the jury of the questions of negligence on the part of appellant and assumed risk incident to employment on the part of appellee, and it was error on the part of the court to take those questions from it. Both were questions of disputed fact for determination by the jury.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Humphreys, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brwndidge & Neelly, for appellant.", "Mehaffy, Dcmham & Mehaffy, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Hollingshead v. American Railway Express Company.\nOpinion delivered April 12, 1920.\n1. Master and servant \u2014 express company liable for fellow-servant\u2019s negligence. \u2014 Express companies are responsible to a servant injured by the negligent act of a fellow-servant the same as if the negligence was that of the master.\n2. Master and servant \u2014 assumed risk. \u2014 A servant does not assume the risk of injury caused by the negligent act of a fellow-servant until he obtains knowledge of and appreciates the- danger incident to a continuation of his service.\n3. Master and servant \u2014 questions for jury. \u2014 In an action by an express company\u2019s employee for personal injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, questions of the company\u2019s negligence and assumed risk held for the jury.\nAppeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jachsow, Judge;\nreversed.\nBrwndidge & Neelly, for appellant.\nThe evidence makes out a, case on the question of negligence sufficient to go to the jury, and it was error to direct a verdict for defendant. 103 Ark. 509; 102 Id. 562; 127 Id. 243. There is no question but that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to a jury.\nMehaffy, Dcmham & Mehaffy, for appellee.\nThe testimony of plaintiff himself and others shows no negligence or want of care on the part of the express company, and plaintiff certainly from all the testimony assumed the risk, as the danger was open and obvious to a man of ordinary intelligence. 135 Ark. 563; 98 Id. 211; 105 Id. 437; 108 Id. 490; 107 Id. 564; 106 Id. 436; 82 Id. 534; 98 Id. 202; 101 Id. 197; 103 Id. 61; 108 Id. 377; 89 Id. 50; 97 Id. 486. The court properly directed a verdict. 204 S. W. 310." }, "file_name": "0422-01", "first_page_order": 446, "last_page_order": 448 }