Carroll v. Texarkana Gas & Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1912 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. TEXARKANA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Miller County; Jacob M. Carter, Judge.
Action by Bailey Carroll against the Texarkana Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
This suit was brought by appellant in the Miller circuit court against appellee for damages for personal injuries to him and injuries to his horse and buggy, alleged to have been caused, while driving along the street, by his horse stepping or falling, in the nighttime, into an excavation in the street, in the city of Texarkana, negligently left open and unguarded by appellee; the damage being alleged at $1,000 to himself, $100 to his horse, and $5 to his buggy. Defendant, after denying it, admitted making the excavation, denied that same was carelessly left open, that the plaintiff drove his horse into the ditch, and that he or his horse or buggy were injured at all. Alleged that the excavation was guarded and protected with red lights, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in driving or falling into same. It was virtually undisputed that appellant was injured by his horse falling into a ditch in the street and throwing or jerking him violently against the buggy, confined to his bed for several days, suffered great pain, and was not able to perform his usual work for a period of three or four months. He incurred $10 or $12 liability for doctors' bills and medicine for being treated for the injury; that his horse was damaged in about the sum of $75; and that it had cost him $4.80 to repair the buggy. The court instructed the jury, and they returned a verdict in favor of appellant and assessed his damage at $1, and from the judgment he appealed.
L. A. Byrne, for appellant. W. H. Arnold, for appellee.
KIRBY, J. (after stating the facts as above).
No complaint is made of any of the instructions given, nor of the introduction or rejection of testimony, but only that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.
The jury found by their verdict for the appellant that the appellee had negligently left open and unguarded an excavation in the street of the city, into which appellant drove in the night, and was injured; but it assessed only one dollar damages for the injury, although the testimony was virtually undisputed that the damages suffered by appellant on account of such injuries amounted...
To continue reading
Request your trial