{
  "id": 8721286,
  "name": "William A. SMITH Jr., Sylvanis PEEKS, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Eugene SMITH, Mary Margaret SMITH, Individually and as Next Friend of Mary Ann SMITH v. J. M. AARON and S. W. AARON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Aaron",
  "decision_date": "1974-04-15",
  "docket_number": "73-294",
  "first_page": "414",
  "last_page": "417",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ark. 414"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "508 S.W.2d 320"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "85 S.W. 2d 689",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 Ark. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1418519
      ],
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/191/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633322
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 Ark. 1140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1456509
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1940,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/199/1140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.W. 2d 889",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ark. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724705
      ],
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/179/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 F. Supp. 658",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3064712
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/307/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "422 F. 2d 744",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2254832
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/422/0744-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 438,
    "char_count": 5548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.297109442544507e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43400792864757753
    },
    "sha256": "5f18cfcbe62d6109cf2ab0b3f10c4082f418ad701ceaadbfad7f76d38303d74e",
    "simhash": "1:b32d2fddd12e47da",
    "word_count": 903
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William A. SMITH Jr., Sylvanis PEEKS, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Eugene SMITH, Mary Margaret SMITH, Individually and as Next Friend of Mary Ann SMITH v. J. M. AARON and S. W. AARON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe deceased, Robert Eugene Smith, was employed by appellees to operate a cotton picker. While operating the picker, the deceased raised the basket to unload its contents in a trailer. The basket became caught in overhead power lines. The deceased then stepped from the picker cab to the trailer and was instantly electrocuted. Admittedly, the work conditions near the high voltage lines did not comply with the safety requirements or standards of care prescribed by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1401 et. seq. (Supp. 1973). This statute contains a penal provision and sets forth the minimum precautions of safety conditions for work being performed by an employee near high voltage lines including a requirement that a certain size and worded sign, prohibiting operation of machinery within six feet of high voltage lines, be posted outside and within the machinery. No such signs were posted. Among other defenses, appellees elicited evidence of custom and usage with respect to signs. A jury apportioned decedent\u2019s negligence at 97% and 3% as to the appellees. Consequently, appellants were precluded from any recovery since the decedent\u2019s negligence exceeded that of appellees. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-1730.1 \u2014 .2 (Repl. 1962).\nWe first consider appellants\u2019 contention for reversal that the trial court erred in overruling appellants\u2019 objection to the following question:\n[Appellees\u2019 attorney]\nQ. From that time until now have you ever seen any signs posted by a man that operated a farm with regard . . .\n[Appellants\u2019 attorney]\nWe object to that question.\nCourt: I am going to let him answer.\nObjection overruled.\nA. Never have seen a sign nowheres.\nQ. Warning anybody about lines?\nA. No, sir.\nWe agree with the appellants. It has been held that where a contractor is held to both custom and industry standards and to the standard which would be followed by a reasonably prudent man then the more exacting standard will control. Baker v. Pidgeon Thomas Co., 422 F. 2d 744 (1970) and cases cited therein including AMI 1204 (which was later revised as a result of this opinion). In the case at bar the statutory scheme \u00a7 81-1401 et seq., supra, sets the more exacting standards. We hold that when a legislative enactment, as here, prescribes the minimum standards for the safety of an employee in mandatory language then such requirements supersede and render irrelevant any evidence as to custom and usage. To hold contra would deprive the statutory scheme, as devised by our legislature, of its purpose and effectiveness.\nEven in the absence of statutory standards there is authority that \u201c . . . . industry cannot be permitted to establish its own uncontrolled standard by adopting careless methods to save time, effort and money.\u201d Ferguson v. Ben M. Hogan Company, 307 F. Supp. 658 (W. D. Ark. 1969). There the defendant contended that it was the custom of contractors in Arkansas to have \u201cunfinished strips of asphalt in a rough and uneven condition without employing safety or protective devices. ...\u201d The court said this was a \u201cspecious\u201d argument. Cf. Arkansas Drilling Co. v. Gross, 179 Ark. 631, 17 S.W. 2d 889 (1929).\nWe find no error in the court\u2019s refusal to give appellants\u2019 proffered instruction with respect to the extent of the employer\u2019s common law duty to furnish an employee safe working conditions. The instruction did not sufficiently state the law. See, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Casson, 199 Ark. 1140, 138 S.W. 2d 406 (1940), Norris v. Daves, 251 Ark. 101, 470 S.W. 2d 937 (1971), and 53 Am. Jur. 2d, Master and Servant, \u00a7 195. Neither did the court err in refusing appellants\u2019 instruction on assumption of risk. This issue was interposed by appellees as an affirmative defense. Therefore, when the court refused appellees\u2019 instruction on the subject, it ceased being an issue affecting the appellants.\nAppellants also contend that the jury\u2019s verdict is unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. On appeal we need only look to that evidence, with all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, which is most favorable to the appellees. Baldwin v. Wingfield, 191 Ark. 129, 85 S.W. 2d 689 (1935). In the case at bar, there was evidence adduced by the appellees that the decedent had been warned about the high voltage lines which were clearly visible. He was not a novice in the operation of the cotton picker having done so for appellees approximately two months. He had experience as a mechanic. At the time of the fatal accident the decedent was operating the picker with his brother in the cab, which was contrary to the instruction and warning of his employers. The crowded condition required the decedent to stand when driving the picker, thereby impairing overhead visibility. He was in this position at the time he attempted to unload the picker basket into the trailer. There was evidence that the picker was mechanically in good condition. In the circumstances we certainly cannot say there was an absence of substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict.\nFor the error previously indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matthews, Purtle, Osterloh & Weber, by: Henry J. Osterloh, for appellants.",
      "Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Boswell, P.A., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William A. SMITH Jr., Sylvanis PEEKS, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Eugene SMITH, Mary Margaret SMITH, Individually and as Next Friend of Mary Ann SMITH v. J. M. AARON and S. W. AARON\n73-294\n508 S.W. 2d 320\nOpinion delivered April 15, 1974\n[Rehearing denied May 20, 1974.]\nMatthews, Purtle, Osterloh & Weber, by: Henry J. Osterloh, for appellants.\nLaser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Boswell, P.A., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0414-01",
  "first_page_order": 450,
  "last_page_order": 453
}