Arkansas Southwestern Railroad Co. v. Wingfield
Decision Date | 28 February 1910 |
Citation | 126 S.W. 76,94 Ark. 75 |
Parties | ARKANSAS SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. WINGFIELD |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Kinsworthy & Rhoton, and James H. Stevenson, for appellant.
1. The third instruction given at appellee's request involves a contradiction of ideas, in stating to the jury that in taking passage on a mixed train appellee "assumed the risk of necessary and usual jolts and jars" incident to the operation of such a train, and then proceeding to tell them that the appellent was, nevertheless, held to the exercise "of the same high degree of care in the handling of said train as if she were riding on a regular train," etc. Such an instruction destroys all distinction between the handling of the two classes of trains, and nullifies the declaration that plaintiff by taking passage on this train assumed any risk whatever. 87 Ark. 109; 76 Ark. 520; 83 Ark 22; 71 Ark. 590.
2. The fourth instruction errs in charging the jury that they could consider the mental pain and anguish endured by the plaintiff on account of the injury. There is no evidence of any mental pain and anguish. 63 Ark. 177; 65 Ark. 222; 70 Ark. 441; 63 Ark. 387; 76 Ark. 348; 77 Ark. 20; 71 Ark. 351.
3. The testimony of Dr. Buchanan as to the effect railway accidents have upon the nerves was inadmissible. He qualifies as a physician, but not as an expert on nervous diseases. He admits that he has had no experience, and his testimony is a mere rehearsel of what Dr. Bailey and others have said specially looked up for this case. There is no showing of that "careful and discriminating study" resulting "in the formation of a definite opinion" which would entitle him to "respect as an expert." 64 Ark. 523, 533; Lawson, Exp. and Op. Ev. 247; Id 202.
McRae & Tompkins, and D. L. McRae, for appellee.
1. There is no error in the third instruction. In the first instruction given the rule was stated to be the highest degree of care consistent with the practical running of the train. The third noted the difference between regular passenger and mixed trains. 87 Ark. 101.
2. Where there is serious bodily injury, the law implies mental suffering. The evidence is ample to support a finding of mental anguish in this case. 175 Ill. 401, 42 L.R.A. 199; 11 Allen, 73; 64 Ark. 538, 546; 1 Sutherland on Damages 706; 13 Cyc. 136, notes 95 and 98.
3. The testimony of Dr. Buchanan was competent. 64 Ark. 532.
This is an appeal by the Arkansas Southwestern Railroad Company from a judgment against it in favor of Mrs. W. H. Wingfield for injuries alleged to have been received by her from a sudden jolt caused by the coupling of a mixed freight and passenger train in which she had taken her seat as a passenger and was sitting at the time of the injury.
The facts as shown by the evidence in the trial of the action were substantially as follows:
In the trial Dr. Buchanan in behalf of the appellee, testified that he had been practicing medicine for six years; that he was a graduate of the Arkansas Medical Department of the University of Arkansas, and had taken two post graduate courses at the New York Polyclinic; and had examined Mrs. Wingfield. Over the objection of appellant he was asked, "From what you know, from your medical education and your observation, state whether or not there is anything in railway accidents that peculiarly predisposes sufferers from such accidents to this nervous affection?" He answered:
Over the objections of the appellant the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borland v. State
... ... Heath, a negro, at Hulbert, Arkansas, on the 10th day of ... August, 1922. He was found guilty of murder in ... purpose of inducing them to quit working for the railroad ... company; that two of the negroes made breast and side-pocket ... ...
-
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Coy
...and a collision or derailment is prima facie evidence of negligence. 89 Ark. 82; 76 Ark. 520; 83 Ark. 22; 90 Ark. 494; 95 Ark. 220; 94 Ark. 75; 113 Mo.App. 636; 53 462-465; 84 Id. 498. Being purely a collision, due to the car being shunted or thrown too far, and to a point where other cars ......
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Leslie
... ... LESLIE, ADMINISTRATOR No. 244 Supreme Court of Arkansas April 6, 1914 ... [167 S.W. 84] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... that there is no duty upon the railroad company as between it ... and its employees to [112 Ark. 321] place such ... Ark. 19-24, 117 S.W. 763; Ark. S.W. Rd. Co ... v. Wingfield, 94 Ark. 75, 126 S.W. 76; St ... Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v ... ...
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Hartung
... ... 4 Elliott on Rds., § 1629; Ark. S.W ... Ry. v. Wingfield, 94 Ark. 75; 90 Ark. 494. The passenger ... assumes the risk of the ... train from Watson to Helena, two stations upon its line of ... railroad, in which it carried passengers and freight. The ... testimony on the ... St. Louis, I. M. & S ... Ry. Co., 83 Ark. 22, 102 S.W. 387; Arkansas Central ... Railroad Co. v. Janson, 90 Ark. 494, 119 S.W. 648; ... is thus stated in the case of St. Louis Southwestern Ry ... Co. v. Cobb, 89 Ark. 82, 115 S.W. 939: ... "The passenger ... ...