Falls v. Scott

The opinion of the court was delivered by This is a personal injury negligence action. Berlin Falls,
while on his property, was severely injured when a "brush hog"
mowing machine being operated on adjacent property threw a piece
of wire that struck him in the face and eyes. Falls sued Rosemary
Scott, the landowner, and Harry Ohmie, the mowing
[249 Kan. 56]
machine operator, for Falls' injuries resulting from their
alleged negligence. Although the jury returned a verdict for
Falls, he appeals a number of adverse trial court rulings,
claiming the trial court erred in: (1) not allowing plaintiff's
expert witness to testify concerning the nature of a brush hog
and its inherent dangerous design; (2) ruling that the brush hog
was not inherently or abnormally dangerous and its operation
within the city limits was not inherently dangerous; (3)
determining that defendant Scott was not responsible under
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427 (1963) for an independent
contractor's negligent operation of the brush hog because the
independent contractor was not performing an inherently dangerous
activity; (4) finding the landowner had committed no independent
acts of negligence; (5) ruling there was no evidence of an
employment or agency relationship between Scott and yard man
Sonny Vaugh and the men working on Scott's property; and (6)
prohibiting a plaintiff's witness from testifying as to his
employment status, but allowing defendants' witnesses to testify
as to their employment status.