Biddle v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 21 December 1914
• Docket Number: 77
• Citation: 172 S.W. 258,116 Ark. 82
• Parties: BIDDLE et al., RECEIVERS, v. JACOBS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

172 S.W. 258

116 Ark. 82

BIDDLE et al., RECEIVERS, v. JACOBS

No. 77

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 21, 1914

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; R. E. Jeffery Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellee is the administratrix of the estate, and the widow, of A. C Jacobs, deceased. She alleged in the complaint which she filed in this cause that her intestate, on August 19, 1913 became a passenger on one of appellee's trains operated between Fort Smith and Mansfield, and that this train collided with a train of the Midland Valley Railroad, as the result of which her intestate sustained certain injuries from which he died, after great suffering, on the 30th of December, 1913.

Appellant makes no denial of its negligence, nor of its liability for any damages which may have resulted from this collision. There was a judgment for a large sum of money, but it is not urged that the verdict is excessive. Indeed, appellant complains of no error committed at the trial, except that it says there is no preponderance of the evidence that intestate's death was attributable to any injury received in this collision, and that the verdict of the jury to the contrary is supported only by conjecture. Appellant offered no evidence in its own behalf, but says that appellee's evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.

Upon this issue we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and, when thus viewed, it would have supported the following findings of facts: That the train upon which deceased was a passenger consisted of an engine and two coaches, and deceased was seated next to the window and about the middle of the chair car, with one arm resting upon the window sill and his foot upon the water pipe. That the chairs of the car were constructed of cast iron, the seats being supported by a pedestal formed of that material firmly attached to the floor. That deceased was an attorney and was at the time en route to Booneville to assist in the defense of a man charged with murder. The trains which collided were running fifteen or twenty miles an hour, and the impact was of such force and violence that many seats were torn from the floor, their backs broken and passengers thrown violently from their seats. The back of the chair in which deceased was seated was broken, and he was violently precipitated backward to the floor. Immediately after the collision, the deceased, upon being asked if he was hurt, replied that he "was hurt some," and, after rendering assistance to several of the ladies, and upon reaching the ground, he complained of his arm, back and shoulder blade, and was holding his arm in an unnatural position, and while lending assistance to others he manifested symptoms of discomfort by shrugging his shoulders and attempting to straighten himself. His complaints caused a Mr. Brock, who was also an attorney and was deceased's traveling companion, to examine his back at the scene of the collision, where there was discovered a bruised condition between the shoulder blades, about three-quarters of an inch in length, and the following night deceased complained of increased pain in his back. He remained at Mansfield the night of the accident, and went to Booneville the next morning, where he remained for nearly a week. During this time he was engaged in the trial of a cause there, and he manifested symptoms of pain and suffering, and seemed to be nervous and uneasy, and while at Booneville he was frequently seen moving his body in a manner that indicated soreness and a feeling of uneasiness and pain. He returned to Clarksville, his home, within a week after the accident, and his condition at that time was plainly noticeable by his law partner, who stated that, when deceased came into the office, there were traces of pain in his eyes and a seriousness about him which he had never observed before, and that deceased was never a well man afterward, and that deceased's pains continued to become more serious and severe. That shortly after the collision, deceased's eyesight became affected, and his locomotion impaired, and he experienced difficulty in climbing the stairs, and dreaded to do so. That he complained of having headaches and the pain in his back grew worse, and he later suffered pain in the base of his head, and frequently described it as "feeling as if some one was cutting the brain with a knife." Deceased went about to some extent as late as October, but all of his acquaintances had previously observed his changed condition, in fact, the testimony was that this changed condition was observable upon his return home after his injury. The proof is that, prior to his injury, he was a strong, healthy, vigorous man, of erect carriage, and athletic build, and a doctor, who became the principal witness in the case, testified that he had known deceased from his childhood and had been his physician for years, and that he was a man of unusual strength and of excellent health, but that within a week after the injury deceased's manner had changed, and he complained of pains in his back and head, and within two weeks after the injury deceased suffered a partial stroke of paralysis in his arm and leg, and was compelled to use a cane. This doctor testified that, upon his second examination of deceased, he found that his temperature was below normal and his pulse too rapid, and that deceased took on a downcast, dejected appearance, and lost his accustomed snap and vigor, and ceased to be able to hold himself erect as he had done before his injury, and began to walk in a sidewise manner, half stooped or leaning over, and began to drag his foot and to walk with difficulty. This doctor was examined and cross-examined at great length, and, while he stated that he did not know the cause of deceased's death, further than that it resulted from a pressure on the brain, he stated, in a most unequivocal manner, that, in his opinion, death was caused by the injury received in this collision. This witness testified, however, that death might have been caused by a tumor upon the brain, and he defined the symptoms attendant upon a brain tumor and stated that these symptoms were present in this case, although he stated his opinion to be that deceased did not die from that cause.

The evidence of all the witnesses was to the effect that deceased gradually grew worse and that his death was unquestionably caused by a pressure of some character upon the brain, and this pressure grew gradually stronger and, after causing the most indescribable suffering, finally resulted in deceased's death.

The doctor testified that the exact cause of death could have been ascertained only by the performance of an autopsy. No autopsy was ever performed.

Appellant insists that the very manner in which deceased died shows that there was no laceration leading to the formation of a blood clot, and the brief in its behalf contains a most interesting presentation of this view of the evidence. It is urged that such an injury will produce a certain effect, and that whatever blood clot might form from such an injury would form at once, and its result would be immediately apparent and that in such a case the blood clot would become absorbed and the patient...