{
  "id": 1875365,
  "name": "HOWARD'S CLEANERS v. Ron MUNSEY, et ux.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howard's Cleaners v. Munsey",
  "decision_date": "1986-05-05",
  "docket_number": "86-6",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "289 Ark. 22"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "708 S.W.2d 628"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "278 Ark. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1748149
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/278/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719688
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719555
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0447-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 2730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3914734025033892
    },
    "sha256": "da6a0109c8c07f02d090c43487c0ae08bb9accf1dce8be6ea709b7745e1ae134",
    "simhash": "1:baf8034cb46cdfe8",
    "word_count": 463
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HOWARD\u2019S CLEANERS v. Ron MUNSEY, et ux."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nIn this action to recover damages for drapes which shrank during cleaning, Mrs. Rita Munsey testified that after consulting several cleaning firms she gave three sets of drapes to Howard\u2019s Cleaners to be cleaned. Two sets of drapes were cleaned satisfactorily, but one set shrank some four or five inches and Howard\u2019s efforts to correct the problem were not successful.\nThe Munseys filed suit and in a bench trial the circuit court awarded judgment in the sum of $2,120.60. Howard\u2019s has appealed on the premise that it was error for the trial judge to find Howard\u2019s liable when the cause of the damage was due to a hidden or latent defect in the material known only to Mrs. Munsey.\nThe short answer to Howard\u2019s argument is we find no testimony whatever that Mrs. Munsey was aware of anything about the drapes bearing on their ability to withstand cleaning nor, for that matter, any proof that the shrinkage was due to a latent defect. There was testimony that drapery material that had not been preshrunk was liable to shrink and, according to Howard\u2019s witnesses, Mrs. Munsey was warned of that possibility. However, Mrs. Munsey testified that she was not asked whether the drapes were preshrunk and could not have answered if she had been asked, because she simply did not know. She denied categorically that she was told the drapes might shrink. The trial court obviously accepted her testimony on this disputed issue and that finding could not be said to be clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. ARCP Rule 52. Taylor v. Richardson, 266 Ark. 447, 585 S.W.2d 934 (1979).\nAlthough not offered as a point of error on appeal, Howard\u2019s argument asserts there was no proof that Howard\u2019s was negligent in cleaning the drapes. We addressed this issue in Howard\u2019s Laundry and Cleaners v. Brown, 266 Ark. 460, 585 S.W.2d 944 (1979), a case bearing particular resemblance to this case, and noted the general rule of bailments that where a bailee returns goods in a damaged condition which were not so damaged when received, an inference of negligence applies. The bailee may then go forward with proof that he exercised ordinary care in handling the bailed goods. That point not having been developed in the briefs, nor any objection before the trial court appearing in the abstract, we will not go to the record to seek the answer. Ferguson v. City of Mountain Pine, 278 Ark. 575, 647 S.W.2d 460 (1983).\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shelby R. Blackmon, for appellant.",
      "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by; William H. Sutton and William A. Waddell, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOWARD\u2019S CLEANERS v. Ron MUNSEY, et ux.\n86-6\n708 S.W.2d 628\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 5, 1986\nShelby R. Blackmon, for appellant.\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, by; William H. Sutton and William A. Waddell, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 48,
  "last_page_order": 49
}