Phillips v. Quapaw Bath House Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Phillips v. Quapaw Bath House Company

170 S.W.2d 1001, 205 Ark. 816, 1943 Ark. LEXIS 232

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 10, 1943

Docket4-7069

StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.W.2d 1001 (Phillips v. Quapaw Bath House Company) 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

Phillips v. Quapaw Bath House Company, 170 S.W.2d 1001, 205 Ark. 816, 1943 Ark. LEXIS 232 (Ark. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Griffin Smith, C. J.

The judgment (a jury having-been waived) absolved the Bath House Company of negligence, notwithstanding appellant’s shoulder was slightly cut when she came into contact with a piece of rusty tin — which, as she expressed it, ‘ ‘. . . was sticking out the edge of the door. ’ ’

Tbe court found that although in- different circumstances presence of the tin would have constituted negligence, proof was lacking that it had been in a position to cause danger a sufficient length of time to have been discovered by the defendant in the exercise of ordinary care. We cannot say this holding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

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

Griffin Smith, C. J.

The judgment (a jury having-been waived) absolved the Bath House Company of negligence, notwithstanding appellant’s shoulder was slightly cut when she came into contact with a piece of rusty tin — which, as she expressed it, ‘ ‘. . . was sticking out the edge of the door. ’ ’

Tbe court found that although in- different circumstances presence of the tin would have constituted negligence, proof was lacking that it had been in a position to cause danger a sufficient length of time to have been discovered by the defendant in the exercise of ordinary care. We cannot say this holding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.W.2d 1001, 205 Ark. 816, 1943 Ark. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-quapaw-bath-house-company-ark-1943.