Billings v. Gipson

763 S.W.2d 85, 297 Ark. 510, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 39
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 30, 1989
Docket88-230
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 763 S.W.2d 85 (Billings v. Gipson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Billings v. Gipson, 763 S.W.2d 85, 297 Ark. 510, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 39 (Ark. 1989).

Opinion

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Everett Billings was injured when he fell from a ladder on a construction site. He was attempting to weld a joist which was being held in position by a crane. He sued the crane operator, Don Wages, and Jay Gipson, the owner of Gipson Crane Company, who are the appellees.

The jury, on a special verdict, found no negligence on the part of Billings or Wages. On appeal Billings makes two arguments, but they are meritless because of the jury’s finding. His first argument is that the Court erred in allowing evidence to be introduced that he drank on the job and had a habit of it. We need not reach the issue because the jury made a specific finding that Billings was not negligent, so the evidence was not prejudicial to his case.

In Ray v. Murphy, 284 Ark. 512, 683 S.W.2d 916 (1985), we found that even if an instruction is erroneously given, a jury verdict may render it harmless. In Ray the jury found the defendant not guilty of any negligence. We said:

The jury’s specific finding that Mrs. Murphy was not negligent conclusively exempts her from any possibility of liability to the plaintiff. If the trial court cannot rest its judgment upon such an explicit verdict, our procedure for instructing juries becomes futile.

See also Cates v. Brown, 278 Ark. 242, 645 S.W.2d 658 (1983); Sanders v. Neuman Drilling Co., 273 Ark. 416, 619 S.W.2d 674 (1981); Bussell v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 237 Ark. 812, 376 S.W.2d 545 (1964).

In this case the jury made specific findings that neither Billings nor the crane operator was negligent. So the evidence could not have prejudiced Billings, because the jury did not find him at fault to any degree.

The second question is did the trial judge err in instructing the jury on the borrowed servant doctrine. Since the jury found no negligence on the part of the crane operator, this issue is also meritless.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baker v. Trevathan
542 S.W.3d 231 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2018)
Adams v. HLC Hotels, Inc.
941 S.W.2d 424 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Webb v. Thomas
837 S.W.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1992)
Morris v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
771 S.W.2d 761 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
763 S.W.2d 85, 297 Ark. 510, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billings-v-gipson-ark-1989.