Summary of Taylor V. Gill-
Kenny Willis and the Taylors live in the same neighborhood
They would occasionally help each other with various things.
On April 16, 1994, a
day when Rick Taylor was out of town, Kenny Willis began mowing the Taylor’s yard.
not asked to do so, but was merely doing this as a favor.
Joyce Taylor, who was at work when
Willis began to mow, returned while Willis was in the process of mowing the yard.
She did not
ask him to stop.
While Willis was mowing in a ditch, the lawnmower hit a rock or piece of
gravel, which shot out from the side of the mower and struck plaintiff Jackie Gill in the eye.
lost partial use of his eye.
Gill sued Kenny Willis as well as the Taylors.
His case against the
Taylors was based upon the contention that Willis was acting as the Taylor’s agent at the time he
was mowing the grass.
He also alleged that Willis operated the mower in a negligent fashion by
operating it in an area where gravel and rocks were located.
The jury found that Willis was
operating the mower negligently, and that he was acting as an agent of the Taylors, and that there
was joint and several liability between Willis and the Taylors for damages to Gill, assessed at
$40,000. In sum, we see a marked difference between the authority of Joyce Taylor to stop
Willis from doing the work altogether, which she most certainly could have done, and her
authority to control the exact manner in which Willis went about his task.
We observe no proof
that the Taylors intended to micro manage, or could have micro managed, how Willis actually
accomplished his work.
Nor do we glean from the record that Willis would have subjected
himself to such control in performing this favor.
The Judgement was reversed.
Summary of Smith V. Russ-
The purchaser of an automobile sued Tim Smith and Shelby
Arrington for breach of contract, alleging that he was required to return a recently purchased car
due to the fact that it turned out to be stolen.
Plaintiff included in his claim a demand for
consequential damages, alleging that since he was deprived of the use of the car he was unable to
deliver pizzas (which his job required), and thus he was demoted from delivery driver to cook,
resulting in lost tips and wages.
The jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, and included an award of
$10,395 for lost tips and wages.
This portion of the jury verdict was appealed to the Arkansas
Court of Appeals. The Arkansas court of appeals then concluded that the court erred in awarding
plaintiff lost tips and wages.
“Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach
.. any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller
at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by
cover or otherwise.”
Plaintiff never presented evidence that , at the time of
contracting, defendants had reason to know the particular needs of plaintiff.
Thus, we reverse