Battle v. Guttrey
| Decision Date | 13 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 58 |
| Citation | 208 S.W. 289,137 Ark. 228 |
| Parties | BATTLE v. GUTTREY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Jobe & Jobe, for appellant.
The verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. The jury had no right arbitrarily to disregard the testimony of the three disinterested witnesses. 118 Ark. 349; 101 Ark 532; 53 Ark. 96.
The court erred in refusing to allow Dr. Cannon to answer the question propounded for the reason that the relation of physician and patient did not exist. 112 Ark. 534.
J. D Montgomery and L. F. Monroe, for appellee.
The verdict of the jury was supported by the testimony introduced. 90 Ark. 100; 84 Ark. 406; 87 Ark. 109; 128 Ark. 307.
The court did not err in refusing to allow Dr. Cannon to answer the question propounded upon objection made. 96 Ark. 190; 97 Ark. 564. The relation of physician and patient did exist and the court did not err in excluding it. Carbo's Digest, section 3098; 117 Ark. 396; 113 Ark. 296; 98 Ark. 352; 112 Ark. 534.
The testimony of Dr. Cannon would not have affected the question of liability, but would have gone only to the question of damages. 74 Ark. 326; 112 Ark. 534.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Dovey Guttrey, alleged in her complaint that she received serious personal injuries resulting from negligence of the defendant, O. M. Battle, in the operation of his automobile along a public highway in Hempstead County. The plaintiff, it is alleged, was riding in a vehicle drawn by a team of mules and met defendant in his automobile approaching from the opposite direction; that the mules became frightened at the approaching automobile and that plaintiff and one of her companions signaled defendant to stop the car, but that he disregarded the signals and dashed by, thus causing the team to become further frightened and to run out of the road so that plaintiff was thrown out of the vehicle and injured.
Damages were claimed in the sum of $ 5,000, and on the trial of the issues before a jury there was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff assessing damages in the sum of $ 500. The answer of the defendant tendered an issue as to negligence and also as to the extent of plaintiff's injuries.
The testimony was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury on both issues. Plaintiff testified that she was riding along the highway in a wagon drawn by a team of mules and that as defendant approached in his car the team became frightened; that she and another person in the wagon signaled to the occupants of the automobile to stop, but the signals were disregarded and the automobile was rushed by the team, which became frightened and ran out of the road and across a little knoll near the road, and that plaintiff was thrown out of the vehicle and injured. She was corroborated in her testimony by other occupants of the vehicle in which she was riding and was also corroborated as to the extent of her injuries. The testimony introduced by defendant was to the effect that the team did not become frightened at all, and that no signals were given to the occupants of the automobile to stop the same.
We have a statute in this State which reads in part as follows:
In the case of Russ v. Strickland, 130 Ark. 406 197 S.W. 709, we construed the statute to mean that a person driving an automobile along a highway is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bona v. Thomas Auto Company
-
Williams v. State
... ... reversal of the judgment. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v ... Owen, 111 Ark. 554, 164 S.W. 720; Battle v ... Guttrey, 137 Ark. 228, 208 S.W. 289; ... Johnson v. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co., 167 Ark. 660, ... 269 S.W. 67; and Smith v. State, 172 Ark ... 156, ... ...
-
Williams v. State
...of evidence is not ground for reversal of the judgment. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 111 Ark. 554, 164 S. W. 720; Battle v. Guttrey, 137 Ark. 228, 208 S. W. 289; Johnson v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 167 Ark. 660, 269 S. W. 67; and Smith v. State, 172 Ark. 156, 287 S. W. The court is of the opinion ......
-
Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
... ... Russell v ... Brooks, 92 Ark. 509, 122 S.W. 649; Mutual Life ... Ins. Co. v. Owen, 111 Ark. 554, 164 S.W. 720, ... and Battle v. Guttrey, 137 Ark. 228, 208 ... S.W. 289 ... We call ... attention to the general rule, however, that, where a part of ... ...