East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis
| Decision Date | 08 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4-8614 |
| Citation | 215 S.W.2d 145,214 Ark. 87 |
| Parties | East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis, Administratrix |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied December 20, 1948.
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Clyde H. Brown, Judge.
Affirmed.
Leland F. Leatherman and Buzbee, Harrison & Wright, for appellant.
McMath & Schoenfeld, Earl J. Lane and Shaver, Stewart & Jones, for appellee.
Mary Ruth Dennis, who sued as administratrix, was the wife of Fred G. Dennis. He was killed when two trucks collided. A $ 16,000 recovery is to compensate the widow and two minor children.
It was alleged that a truck owned by East Texas Motor Freight Lines (at the time of collision driven by W. L. Johnson) negligently struck a tank truck driven by Dennis. Recovery of $ 3,600 by H. G. Elliott was based upon a partnership and ownership of the butane truck, the interest in which through appropriate proceedings vested in Elliott.
Near midnight February 13, 1947, Johnson was driving south on Highway 67 near Hope when he observed the 'bobbing' motion of a motor vehicle approaching downgrade, headed north. Johnson testified that when the light was first seen he was proceeding at a moderate rate of speed, "thirty or maybe thirty-five miles an hour." But, insisted Johnson, when the trucks met he had slowed "on this hill, and was making twelve to fifteen miles, having shifted to third gear."
Because of what appeared to be erratic movements of the approaching light as the truck came rapidly downgrade with the motor "wide open" and the vehicle "weaving from one side to the other," Johnson says he undertook to "angle" to the highway shoulder on his right side, and had partially succeeded when the butane truck "ducked in" with a sideswiping motion. The result wrecked the butane truck, damaged Johnson's tractor and trailer, and caused the death of Dennis when his tankload of gas ignited.
The butane truck, according to Johnson, was built in such manner that it projected beyond the fenders, a structural characteristic spoken of as "an overdraft." This protrusion, Johnson testified, was approximately eight inches -- that is, eight inches beyond the fender width. The extension corresponds with the distance Johnson thought Dennis had invaded beyond the highway median line. There were no damage marks on the left front bumper or left front fender of the butane truck. The witness undertook to explain this by saying that when he realized a collision was inevitable he cut to the right, thus throwing the front of his truck away from Dennis; and either a corner of the butane truck body, or its dual wheels, struck his dual wheels. This tended to "slap" Johnson's truck sideways. He admitted, however, that the front end of "this truck" (presumptively the one driven by Dennis) did not have dual wheels. Only the rear axles were so equipped.
There was testimony that the collision impact left marks on the butane truck back of the hood and virtually in a line with the driver's seat. Elliott, co-owner of the butane truck, and one of the plaintiffs, was asked if "this skirt on each side of the body here is flush with the front fender?" His reply was that it protruded one inch beyond the fender. This was at variance with Johnson's testimony, he having stated that the "overdraft" was eight inches.
Appellants rely largely upon distance measurements, photographs, a sketch, and skidmarks thought by the witness Mosier to have been made by the butane truck when it went approximately eight inches across the highway center. Mosier is a member of the State Police Force, with headquarters at Hope. He reached the scene about five minutes after the collision occurred, and in compliance with official requirements, prepared a report. This was used as a basis for his testimony when he was asked the following question:
"From your observation and your experience, what was your conclusion as to where the point of impact between the two vehicles was, with reference to the center of the highway?" Without objection on the ground that the answer called for a conclusion, Mosier replied, "I would say it was on the west side."
Other witnesses, all of whom made their observations substantially after Mosier had acted, testified they could not, with absolute certainty, say whether designated skid marks were imprinted before or after the trucks collided.
One witness found splinters "along about the black center line," but he couldn't say they were "more on one side than another." However, the debris was apparently from the body of the East Texas truck.
T. G Anderson, of the Hope Police Force, testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Gray
...We have reiterated many times that physical facts can be more persuasive than statements by witnesses. East Texas Motor Freight Lines Inc. v. Dennis, 214 Ark. 87, 215 S.W.2d 145. In Pekin Wood Products Co. v. Mason, 185 Ark. 166, 46 S.W.2d 798, we said: '* * * that a well-connected train of......
-
Young v. Johnson
...because of photographs of the road referred to by investigator Kyle Smith. But unlike the situation in East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis, 214 Ark. 87, 215 S.W.2d 145 (1948), where truck tracks crossing the center line were the issue, there is no hint from Smith's presentation t......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Tate
...181 Ark. 780, 27 S.W.2d 992; Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hancock, 195 Ark. 414, 113 S.W.2d 489; East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. et al v. Dennis et al, 214 Ark. 87, 215 S.W.2d 145. In such a case, we have held that where there is not sufficient evidence upon which to predicate a fi......
-
Bennett v. Wood
...and citation of cases and comparisons thereof are of but little value. Plaintiff puts great reliance on East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Dennis, 214 Ark. 87, 215 S.W.2d 145. That case is factually distinguishable from our present case. There, disputed testimony by an officer traced skidmar......