# Potlatch Forests, Inc. v. Smith

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 13, 1964 · 237 Ark. 468

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682059

## Case

- **Full name:** Potlatch Forests, Inc. v. Smith
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 13, 1964
- **Citations:** 237 Ark. 468; 374 S.W.2d 166; 1964 Ark. LEXIS 304
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Johnson
- **Judges:** Harris, Robinson, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682059

## Opinion text

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice (dissenting). I do not agree with the majority opinion. In my view there is no dispute in this case about the facts. Appellee clocked out from work at 2:30 p.m.; he waited around the area for approximately ten minutes; walked under the conveyor belt towards the parking lot; was struck in the eye by some object; the doctors both testified the material around this area would be a producing cause of the injury they found if appellee were struck in the eye; appellee arrived at home at 2:45 p.m.; two of appellant’s own witnesses observed him in his ear driving home; appellee was taken immediately to the hospital and it was stipulated he was seen by Dr. James W. Marsh, M. D. at 3:00 p.m.
“. . . The Appellee stated he did not know what hit him in the eye. The Appellee told both these doctors that the incident occurred at the mill. It is not to be expected that an ordinary individual, immediate^ after suffering the traumatic loss of an eye, would think to fabricate a story as to how it happened upon first examination by a physician within twenty or thirty minutes subsequent to the incident. It is reasonable to conclude that an ordinary individual, knowing that the physician’s successful treatment of an injury might well depend on his knowing the cause therefor, would tell the physician the truth concerning the cause ... It is also apparent, that in the tragedy of the moment, an ordinary person does not cooly reflect on a fictitious tale as to where an incident occurred.” [Referee’s opinion.]
Appellee lost the sight of his eye;—all this took place between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
The time element alone in this case demands an affirmance of the judgment of the Circuit Court. Couple this with the fact that against the positive testimony of appellee’s witnesses, the self-insured appellant even with the apparent full cooperation of its employees couldn’t produce one witness who would testify that the accident did not occur at the time or place or in the manner alleged by appellee.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.
Mr. Justice Robinson joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682059. Public record. Not legal advice.