Bennett v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 31 January 1921
• Docket Number: 131
• Citation: 227 S.W. 402,147 Ark. 206
• Parties: BENNETT v. SNYDER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

227 S.W. 402

147 Ark. 206

BENNETT v. SNYDER

No. 131

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 31, 1921

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulk, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Ben F Reinberger, for appellant.

The evidence does not establish negligence in the operation of the truck and shows no liability of appellant. No negligence or carelessness was proved, and the court erred in its instructions given for plaintiff. This is a plain case for reversal, and no authorities need be cited.

Geo. F Jones, for appellee.

1. Negligence, carelessness and recklessness were shown by the testimony. The evidence sustains the judgment and there was no error in the instructions. 97 Ark. 109.

2. The objections to instructions were in gross and too general. 105 Ark. 157. If any error, it was harmless. 50 Ark. 68; 54 Id. 289.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted by appellee against appellant to recover damages alleged to have been sustained on account of the negligence of appellant's employee in the operation of an automobile truck.

Appellee was driving his horse hitched to a buggy along the road between North Little Rock and Camp Pike, and the horse came into collision with a truck driven by one of appellant's employees. Appellant was having some hauling done from Camp Pike to Little Rock and was operating two trucks driven by his employees. The trucks were a short distance apart, and the one that collided with the horse was the rear truck. The horse's leg was broken in the collision, and a veterinary, who was immediately called, advised that the horse be killed, which was done. Appellee sued for the value of the horse and also for damages done to the buggy and harness. There was a verdict in appellee's favor awarding damages in the sum of two hundred dollars.

The main contention of appellant is that the evidence does not establish negligence in the operation of the truck. In testing the sufficiency of the evidence we must, of course, view it in the light most favorable to appellee. The collision occurred about 11 o'clock in the daytime and on the paved road which runs between North Little Rock and Camp Pike. At the place of the collision the road was straight. Appellee was driving along the road when he met the two trucks, and the horse became frightened at the noise of the first truck. He was struck by the second truck.

The evidence adduced by appellee was to the effect that the horse was in the middle of the road and that the truck was running in the middle of the road with sufficient space on the side to turn out to the side of the road far enough to avoid striking the horse. There was a sharp conflict in the testimony. That introduced by appellant tended to show that the truck was close to the side of the road when the horse became frightened, but this is contradicted by the testimony of appellee himself, who said that there was a space of four or five feet between the truck and the side of the road, which gave an opportunity for the driver to turn out sufficiently to avoid striking the horse. In addition to this, there was testimony to the effect that the truck was going at a very slow speed--about five miles an hour--and the jury could have found that a driver using ordinary care could have stopped the automobile in time to prevent striking the horse. There was other testimony to the effect that the truck was being operated at a greater rate of speed than stated above, but this conflict raised a question for the determination of the jury.

There was also testimony to the effect that the truck was an old one and out of...