Field v. Viraldo, (No. 19.)

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtMcCulloch
Citation216 S.W. 8
Decision Date01 December 1919
Docket Number(No. 19.)
PartiesFIELD v. VIRALDO.
216 S.W. 8
FIELD
v.
VIRALDO.
(No. 19.)
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
December 1, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Guy Fulk, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Mattie Viraldo against O. B. Field. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. A. Watkins, of Little Rock, for appellant.

Geo. W. Hays and Gardner K. Oliphint, both of Little Rock, for appellee.

Page 9

McCULLOCH, C. J.


This is an action instituted by Mrs. Mattie Viraldo, the appellee, against appellant to recover compensation for personal injuries received by being attacked and knocked down by a bull owned by appellant and alleged to be vicious. The issues were tried before a jury, and the trial resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee for recovery of damages in the sum of $300.

Appellee and her husband resided on a farm in Pulaski county, near appellant's farm. There were no fences in that locality, except such as were maintained by farmers to inclose yards, lots, and pastures. The house in which appellee lived was not inclosed by any fence. Appellant owned the bull in question, and it attacked appellee one night at her home immediately in front of the house. Appellee testified in her own behalf, and described the attack made by the bull and the extent of her injuries. She testified that the bull came to her house one night and attacked a mare belonging to her husband, and hooked the mare down. That occurred about ten days before the incident which forms the basis of this litigation. She testified that she was awakened about 12 o'clock at night by a noise in front of the house, and she found that the bull was "bothering" her cow, which was chained to a post, and she immediately dressed herself and went out and drove the bull away, using a switch with dry leaves on it, which made a noise when threshed against the ground which scared the bull. She untied the cow and started to the barn with it, and the bull came with a rush and butted her down, and seriously injured her. She was unconscious, and was carried to the house, and suffered pain and inconvenience for a considerable length of time. There is no doubt that the injuries received were sufficient to warrant the amount of damages assessed by the jury. Appellee testified that after the injury occurred she went up to appellant's house and had a conversation about it, in which appellant admitted that the bull was unruly and vicious; that "it took six men to get it home on his place," and "hooked everything down; hooked his own mules down."

The court instructed the jury, in substance, that if the bull had vicious propensities, known...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...v. McArthur, 33 Mo. App. 218; Schroeder v. Faires, 49 Mo. App. 470; Short v. Bohle, 64 Mo. App. 242; Freed v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; Duffer v. Cully, 3 Ore. 377; McIntire v. Prater, 189 Ark. 596, 74 S.W. (2d) 639; Creeger v. Springfield Rendering Co., 220 N.E. 352; Banks v. Maxwe......
  • Hamby v. Haskins, No. 81-241
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 29, 1982
    ...depot; and, (2) The agent had direct knowledge the animal was dangerous before it bit the plaintiff. In Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8 (1919), we dealt with a vicious bull. It attacked the appellee one night at her home immediately in front of her house. There was considerable ev......
  • Bradley v. Hendricks, No. 5--5680
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 10, 1972
    ...or dangerous propensities and that the owner knew, or should have known, of such tendencies or propensities. Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; McIntyre v. Prater, 189 Ark. 596, 74 S.W.2d 639; Holt v. Leslie, 116 Ark. 433, 173 S.W. 191; Finley v. Smith, 240 Ark. 323, 399 S.W.2d 271;......
  • Oliver v. Jones, No. 5-3606
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 31, 1965
    ...Briscoe v. Alfrey, 61 Ark. 196, 32 S.W. 505, 30 L.R.A. 607; Fraser v. Hawkins, 137 Ark. 214, 208 S.W. 296; Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; Pool v. Clark, 207 Ark. 635, 182 S.W.2d 217; and Favre v. Medlock, 212 Ark. 911, 208 S.W.2d 439. See also the Opinion by Judge Lemley in Pool......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...v. McArthur, 33 Mo. App. 218; Schroeder v. Faires, 49 Mo. App. 470; Short v. Bohle, 64 Mo. App. 242; Freed v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; Duffer v. Cully, 3 Ore. 377; McIntire v. Prater, 189 Ark. 596, 74 S.W. (2d) 639; Creeger v. Springfield Rendering Co., 220 N.E. 352; Banks v. Maxwe......
  • Hamby v. Haskins, No. 81-241
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 29, 1982
    ...depot; and, (2) The agent had direct knowledge the animal was dangerous before it bit the plaintiff. In Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8 (1919), we dealt with a vicious bull. It attacked the appellee one night at her home immediately in front of her house. There was considerable ev......
  • Bradley v. Hendricks, No. 5--5680
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 10, 1972
    ...or dangerous propensities and that the owner knew, or should have known, of such tendencies or propensities. Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; McIntyre v. Prater, 189 Ark. 596, 74 S.W.2d 639; Holt v. Leslie, 116 Ark. 433, 173 S.W. 191; Finley v. Smith, 240 Ark. 323, 399 S.W.2d 271;......
  • Oliver v. Jones, No. 5-3606
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 31, 1965
    ...Briscoe v. Alfrey, 61 Ark. 196, 32 S.W. 505, 30 L.R.A. 607; Fraser v. Hawkins, 137 Ark. 214, 208 S.W. 296; Field v. Viraldo, 141 Ark. 32, 216 S.W. 8; Pool v. Clark, 207 Ark. 635, 182 S.W.2d 217; and Favre v. Medlock, 212 Ark. 911, 208 S.W.2d 439. See also the Opinion by Judge Lemley in Pool......
  • 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