Ellis v. Ferguson

Decision Date07 December 1964
Docket NumberNo. 5-3388,5-3388
Citation385 S.W.2d 154,238 Ark. 776
PartiesH. M. ELLIS, Appellant, v. Shelby C. FERGUSON, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Carmack Sullivan, Hardy, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Justice.

This appeal questions the sufficiency of evidence to support a judgment under the Guest Statutes.

On April 18, 1961, appellee Shelby C. Ferguson was a guest in an automobile driven by appellant H. M. Ellis and owned by Bon McCourtney. They were proceeding south from Hardy toward the Udell Motel for the purpose of attending, as attorneys, a criminal hearing to be held at the motel. As appellant approached the motel, he slowed down and turned left across the highway toward the motel driveway, when his car was hit by one driven by J. L. Tyner.

Ellis and McCourtney filed suit against Tyner for personal injuries and property damage in the Northern District of Sharp County Circuit Court. Tyner asserted a claim against Ellis and McCourtney. Ferguson filed an intervention, seeking to recover for personal injuries against Tyner, Ellis and McCourtney. All the various claims were settled except Ferguson's claim against Ellis and McCourtney under the Guest Statutes. This was tried before a jury on March 31, 1964. The court directed a verdict for McCourtney at the close of appellee's evidence. The jury returned a verdict for Ferguson against Ellis in the sum of $6,000.00. From judgment on the verdict comes this appeal.

For reversal appellant states that the trial court erred in refusing to direct the jury to return a verdict for him, contending that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to justify submission of the case to the jury.

The evidence on negligence is simply this: appellant slowed down to about ten miles an hour preparatory to making the left turn into the motel driveway. Appellant testified that he did not see the Tyner vehicle until a split second before the collision, although it is undisputed that he looked south. It was also undisputed that appellant's view to the south was impaired by a low spot in the road. Appellee testified that he saw Tyner's car both before it entered and after it emerged from the low spot, assumed that appellant also saw it, and gave no warning of the car's approach. Appellee testified that Tyner was traveling sixty to seventy miles an hour, whereas Tyner testified that his speed was about fifty miles an hour. Testimony was disputed as to whether appellant had his turn signal on.

We have consistently held that whether an automobile is being operated in such a manner as to amount to wanton or willful conduct in disregard...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Attwood v. Attwood's Estate, 81-177
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1982
    ...the parental immunity doctrine preclude a child from suing a parent for willful and wanton conduct? This Court in Ellis v. Ferguson, 238 Ark. 776, 385 S.W.2d 154 (1964) described such conduct as "It is not necessary to prove the defendant deliberately intended to injure the person. It is en......
  • Breeding v. Massey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 29 Junio 1967
    ...proof required to establish each, and willful and wanton negligence ought to have been more carefully defined. See Ellis v. Ferguson, 238 Ark. 776, 385 S.W.2d 154 (1965); Harkrider v. Cox, 232 Ark. 165, 334 S.W.2d 875 (1960); Edwards v. Jeffers, 204 Ark. 400, 162 S.W.2d 472 (1942); Mathes &......
  • Bayer Cropscience LP v. Schafer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Diciembre 2011
    ...of his act was injury to the plaintiff.Nat'l By–Products, Inc., 292 Ark. at 494, 731 S.W.2d at 195–96 (quoting Ellis v. Ferguson, 238 Ark. 776, 778–79, 385 S.W.2d 154, 155 (1964)) (emphasis added). We repeated this definition in Alpha Zeta Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha v. Sullivan, 293 Ark. 576......
  • Hall v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 31 Marzo 1987
    ...does not, however, have to prove that the defendant intended to cause his injury. Lawrence, 669 S.W.2d at 466; Ellis v. Ferguson, 238 Ark. 776, 385 S.W.2d 154, 155 (1964). The Arkansas Supreme Court has stated that before one can be found guilty of engaging in willful and wanton conduct "th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT