Chipman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 4-4957 |
| Parties | CHIPMAN v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
John H. Lookadoo and Rowell, Rowell Dickey, for appellant.
R E. Wiley and Henry Donham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a directed verdict in favor of appellee and a judgment rendered thereon dismissing appellant's complaint. The judgment was rendered in the circuit court of Clark county.
At the conclusion of appellant's testimony, appellee moved that the court instruct a verdict for it which was done over the objection and exception of appellant.
In determining whether the court should have directed a verdict for appellee and should have dismissed appellant's complaint, the evidence must be viewed in the most favorable light to appellant giving thereto its greatest probative value in favor of appellant together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom. In other words, if the evidence was such that had the case been submitted to the jury and a verdict returned in appellant's favor, and this court would have affirmed the judgment based upon said verdict, then it was the duty of the trial court to have submitted the cause to the jury.
In viewing the evidence under the rule thus announced, the facts are as follows: On October 13, 1936, at nine o'clock p m., appellant, an invited guest of Verda Phillips, who was driving an automobile, while proceeding north on highway 65 two miles north of Pine Bluff, ran into a freight car which was being pushed over the highway crossing toward the east or in the direction of Pine Bluff. The freight car was one of eight freight cars coupled together which were being pushed or backed by an engine over the crossing from the west to the east without anyone being at the crossing or on the side or top of the east car with a light to warn the traveling public of its approach to or passage over the crossing, and without ringing the bell or blowing the whistle on the engine. It was a dark night and the freight cars were dark color. The locomotive or engine was some distance west of the crossing and the headlight of the engine was obstructed by a freight car immediately in front or east of it. The east freight car had passed over the crossing when the automobile in which appellant was riding ran into the side of the second freight car. The automobile in which, appellant was riding was traveling at the rate of 25 miles an hour, with lights which reflected about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Pennington
...supra. Appellant relies upon language in St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Perryman, 213 Ark. 550, 211 S.W.2d 647; Chipman v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 195 Ark. 721, 114 S.W.2d 14; and Crossett Lumber Co. v. Cater, 201 Ark. 432, 144 S.W.2d 1074 to justify the instruction requested by it. In Perryman, ......
-
Overstreet v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
...162 S.W.2d 912; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., Thompson, Trustee v. Binkley, 1945, 208 Ark. 933, 188 S.W.2d 291; Chipman v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. et al., 1938, 195 Ark. 721, 114 S.W.2d 14; Harper v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co, 1958, 229 Ark. 348, 314 S.W.2d 696; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Sanders, ......
-
Hawkins v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...was driven into the side of a moving train. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sullivan, 193 Ark. 491, 101 S.W.2d 175; Chipman v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 195 Ark. 721, 114 S.W.2d 14. From these cases it is conceivable that one might leap to the conclusion that this Court has laid down a rule of law th......
-
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Kinard
...was driven into the side of a moving train. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sullivan, 193 Ark. 491, 101 S.W. 2d 175; Chipman v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 195 Ark. 721, 114 S.W.2d 14. From these cases it is conceivable that one might leap to the conclusion that this Court has laid down a rule of law t......