Abraham v. Jones, 5-1486
| Decision Date | 17 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-1486,5-1486 |
| Citation | 228 Ark. 717,310 S.W.2d 488 |
| Parties | Chadad ABRAHAM et ux., Appellants, v. Charlie JONES, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bruce Ivy, Osceola, James M. Gardner, Blytheville, for appellants.
Wm. S. Rader and James W. Steinsiek, Blytheville, for appellee.
Appellants, Chadad Abraham and wife, own a business building on Ash Street in Blytheville, Arkansas, in which they operate a cafe. On the afternoon of June 12, 1956, a wooden awning or overhang attached to the front of the building weighing nearly a ton fell.
Appellee, Charlie Jones, brought this action against appellants alleging numerous acts of negligence in the construction and maintenance of the awning which he claimed struck him when it fell resulting in serious bodily injuries, great pain and suffering, loss of past and future earnings and the ability to earn a livelihood, for which he prayed judgment in the sum of $14,025. In their amended answer appellants admitted the awning fell and their liability for any injuries resulting therefrom but denied that appellee sustained any such injury or damage. On the issues thus narrowed the cause proceeded to a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $6,500.
Appellants first challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict on the grounds that (1) 'the testimony of appellee and his witnesses is so conflicting as to render it worthless to rest the verdict on'; and (2) the verdict 'is against the preponderance of the evidence.' In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict on appeal the test is not whether it is supported by the preponderance of the evidence, but rather whether it is supported by any substantial evidence; and in making that determination the evidence adduced on behalf of appellee must be given the strongest probative force that it will reasonably bear. Baldwin v. Wingfield, 191 Ark. 129, 85 S.W.2d 689; Reed v. Baldwin, 192 Ark. 491, 92 S.W.2d 392. Another elementary rule is that the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.
We briefly consider the evidence in the light of these settled rules. Appellee is a 68-year-old Negro farm laborer who lives with his friend, Major Franklin, at Blytheville, Arkansas. Appellee testified they had been chopping cotton on the day in question when they went to appellants' cafe where appellee purchased a cold drink. They then sat down on a bench on the front porch of the cafe and the awning of the porch fell without warning striking appellee on the head, shoulders 'and all over'. When the awning was raised by several bystanders and an employee of the cafe appellee lay unconscious with blood running from his mouth and nose and was taken to a hospital where X-rays were made disclosing two broken bones in his left foot which was placed in a cast covering half of his leg. He was in the hospital one day and was taken home where he remained in bed for 30 days and used crutches for 30 or 35 days longer when he started using a cane which he was still using at the time of the trial, a year after his injury.
Appellee demonstrated to the jury how he had to walk on the heel of his injured foot. He stated he had suffered and was still suffering much pain in his foot, shoulder and back as a result of the injury; that he could hardly 'git around' and would never 'git around' as he used to; that he was still unable to chop or pick cotton which had been his lifetime vocation; and that his health had been good and he had never consulted a doctor prior to his injury. He formerly earned $700 or $800 a year chopping and picking cotton. The testimony of appellee was corroborated in the main by that of Major Franklin and W. A. Taylor, a bystander, who assisted in lifting the awning off the two men.
Dr. H. L. Hubener examined appellee at the hospital on the day of his injury. He described appellee's injuries as, 'lacerations, fracture of the fifth metatarsal, contusion and concussion of the head, and a back...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Seward v. State
-
Holland v. Ratliff
...mortality table was likewise permissible. Both matters were mentioned by the late Justice Minor W. Millwee in the case of Abraham v. Jones, 228 Ark. 717, 310 S.W.2d 488. 'Appellants also argue the court erred in permitting the introduction of the mortality table showing appellee's life expe......
-
Check v. Meredith, 5--4374
...an instruction upon the loss of future earnings is proper. Holland v. Ratliff, 238 Ark. 819, 384 S.W.2d 950 (1964); Abraham v. Jones, 228 Ark. 717, 310 S.W.2d 488 (1958). Here that essential proof is absent. There is no indication that Joyce missed even a day's work for some fourteen months......