Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Miller

Unknown CourtDecember 16, 1912Cited 17 times

Case Details

Judge(s): McCulloch
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal
State: Rhode Island

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court granted defendant's petition for new trial, finding that the brakeman plaintiff voluntarily assumed the known risk of the lumber pile near the track, and that the station agent who directed the lumber placement was a fellow-servant rather than a vice-principal.

Excerpt

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; The gas company was not liable for the acts of its independent contractors, or its agents or employees, even if injury resulted from their negligence. Pitts was an employee of appellant, but in opening the gates of the gas main and failing to close them or shut off the gas he was acting under the orders of the contractors’ agent, and was their agent. • 54 Ark. 424; 77 Id. 552; 156 N. Y. 75; 60 N. E. 87; 166 Mass. 268; 35 N. E. 101; 20 Moak, Eng. Rep. 469. The test is who directs the movements of the person committing the injury. 156 N. Y. 75. Pitts was simply lent to independent contractors and doing their work, under their orders. L. R. 6 C. P. 24. Under these authorities the court erred in its' charge to the jury. 1. Booth & Flinn were not independent contractors, as found by the jury upon a proper charge.. 2. Pitts was the agent and employee of appellant on duty and subject to its orders. 62 N. Y. Supp. 1086; 46 Fed. 506; 63 Pac. 177; 10 N. Y. Supp. 927 ; 83 Ark. 302. The relation of master and servant never existed between Booth & Flinn and Pitts. 83 Ark. 302; 133 N. W. 888; 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 973; 203 N. Y. 191; 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481. There is no error in the court’s charge.

What This Ruling Means

**Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Miller (1912)** This case involved a workplace injury at Arkansas Natural Gas Company. An employee named Miller was hurt during work operations involving gas lines. The injury occurred when gas company employee Pitts opened gates on a gas main but failed to properly close them or shut off the gas. However, Pitts was working under orders from independent contractors at the time, not directly from the gas company. The court had to decide whether Arkansas Natural Gas Company was responsible for the injury. The company argued they shouldn't be held liable because Pitts was acting as an agent of the independent contractors when the accident happened, not as their direct employee. The court agreed with this reasoning and ruled that the gas company was not responsible for the actions of independent contractors or employees who were taking orders from those contractors. This ruling matters for workers because it shows how companies can potentially avoid responsibility for workplace injuries by using independent contractors. When workers are injured while following orders from contractors rather than direct company supervisors, it may be harder to hold the main employer accountable. Workers should understand their employment status and who is giving them orders, as this can affect their rights if injured.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Read Full Opinion More Arkansas Natural Gas Co. Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.