Blakely & Son v. Jones
| Decision Date | 13 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4-2922 |
| Citation | 57 S.W.2d 1032,186 Ark. 1169 |
| Parties | BLAKELY & SON v. JONES |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; Marvin Harris Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Buzbee Pugh & Harrison, for appellant.
Wallace Townsend and Owens & Ehrman, for appellee.
Action for personal injury--verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
On appeal the defendant raises only two questions: (1) That the evidence fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, and (2) That the court should have declared as a matter of law that appellee Jones was guilty of negligence which directly occasioned or contributed to the casualty causing his injury.
The injury involved in this suit was caused by appellee's Ford coupe striking the rear of appellant's truck. This happened about ten or ten-thirty P. M. about fifteen miles out from Little Rock while appellees were journeying from that city along the highway in the direction of Hot Springs. The highway is one of the principal thoroughfares of the State, and is paved with concrete. The truck belonged to the appellant, and was operated by two of its servants making daily trips between Little Rock and Hot Springs transporting freight. It had left Little Rock on the night in question, and, at the time of the collision, was standing on the highway without any lights being displayed thereon. The claim is made by the appellant that the uncontroverted evidence establishes the fact that the stopping of the truck was unavoidable, and that the collision occurred under circumstances which made it impossible for appellants' servants, in the exercise of ordinary care, to prevent it, and therefore no actionable negligence was proved.
On the evening of the accident there were two of appellants' servants on the truck, the driver and his helper. The testimony of these two is relied upon to establish appellant's contention, and it is insisted that this evidence stands undisputed.
The driver testified that they were going to Hot Springs, the truck being loaded with furniture and other commodities, and the load weighing about 4,000 pounds; that, while driving at the rate of about thirty miles an hour, the lights on the truck suddenly went out, and because of this the truck was brought to an immediate stop. It was a dark misty night. There was no flash light or lantern or other means of making a light except matches. As soon as possible after stopping, witness got out of the truck from the left, or driver's side, on the highway and struck a match to locate the position of the truck thereon, and as he did so he saw two cars coming, one meeting him from the direction of Hot Springs and the other, which proved to be appellee's coupe, coming from the direction of Little Rock behind him; that at this time, and when first observed, the car approaching from the rear of the witness was about 200 yards distant and coming at a rapid speed. The car approaching from the front had stopped, and witness stepped upon the running board of the truck expecting the car coming from the rear to pass on his left, but, instead of doing so, it crashed into the back end of the truck. He was corroborated by his companion as to the interval of time between the stopping of the truck and the collision and that the truck was stopped because its lights had suddenly gone out. The testimony of this witness was to the effect that, when the truck stopped and the driver got out on the left, witness got out on the right with one foot on the pavement and the other on the fender, and in this position raised the seat in order to look for a pair of pliers; that at this time the coupe struck the rear end of the truck, but that he had not seen it or any other car before the collision.
The inference to be drawn from the above testimony is that the stopping of the truck was necessary, and that the collision occurred practically simultaneously with the stopping...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearrow v. Thompson
... ... Co. v. Shipp, 174 Ark. 130, 297 S.W. 856; Ragland v ... Snotzmeier, 186 Ark. 781, 55 S.W.2d 923; Blakley & Son ... v. Jones", 186 Ark. 1169, 57 S.W.2d 1032 ... Hyde, ... C. Ferguson and Bradley, CC., concur ... ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Pearrow v. Thompson, 35508.
...Cola Bottling Co. v. Shipp, 174 Ark. 130, 297 S.W. 856; Ragland v. Snotzmeier, 186 Ark. 781, 55 S.W. (2d) 923; Blakley & Son v. Jones, 186 Ark. 1169, 57 S.W. (2d) 1032. HYDE, C. This is an action for $10,000 damages for personal injuries. The jury found for 121 S.W.2d 813 defendant. Thereaf......
-
Washington County v. Day, 4-5064.
...Fields Corp. v. Hess, 186 Ark. 241, 53 S.W.2d 444; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dewberry, 187 Ark. 278, 59 S.W.2d 607; Blakely & Son v. Jones, 186 Ark. 1169, 57 S.W.2d 1032; Philpot Const. Co. v. Crenshaw, 182 Ark. 1186, 33 S.W.2d 372; Baldwin v. Waters, 191 Ark. 377, 86 S.W.2d 172; Reader R. R. ......
-
Washington County v. Day
... ... v ... Hess, 186 Ark. 241, 53 S.W.2d 444; AEtna Life ... Ins. Co. v. Dewberry, 187 Ark. 278, 59 S.W.2d ... 607; Blakely & Son v. Jones, 186 Ark. 1169, ... 57 S.W.2d 1032; Philpot Const. Co. v ... Crenshaw, 182 Ark. 1186, 33 S.W.2d 372; ... Baldwin v. Waters, 191 ... ...