Fields v. Freeman

• Citation: 8 S.W.2d 436,177 Ark. 807
• Decision Date: 02 July 1928
• Docket Number: 88
• Parties: FIELDS v. FREEMAN
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

8 S.W.2d 436

177 Ark. 807

FIELDS v. FREEMAN

No. 88

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 2, 1928

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court; Earl Witt, Judge; affirmed.

Affirmed.

C H. Herndon, for appellant.

Jerry Witt, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH J.

Appellant, W. A. Fields, brought suit for himself and on behalf of two of his minor children to recover damages to his automobile and to compensate injuries sustained by his children as the result of a collision between his automobile in which he and his children were riding and one driven by appellee. The cases were consolidated and tried together, and from a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee is this appeal.

Appellant was driving through the town of Mount Ida, on a street which is a part of State Highway No. 27, and one of the two children was on the front seat of the car and the other on the rear seat. Appellee was driving out of an alley into this highway when the collision occurred. As is usual in such cases, each driver excused himself and blamed the other.

The testimony on the part of the appellee was that he drove out of the alley in low gear and at a low speed, and, after he had driven about twenty-five feet down the street from the point of intersection of the street and alley, he saw appellant approaching at a speed of about twenty miles per hour and on the left-hand side of the street, which was forty-two feet in width. Appellant was driving south, and there were cars parked on the right, or west side of the street, and he was driving ten feet east of the center of the street.

Appellee testified that, after turning into the street, driving north, he saw appellant's car approaching rapidly, and he observed that appellant was not keeping a lookout, and was on the wrong side of the street, so he applied his brakes and yelled at appellant to attract his attention, as he did not have time to blow his horn after observing that appellant was not looking ahead. Immediately after the impact, appellant stated that he did not know whether he placed his foot on the brake or on the accelerator.

We do not state appellant's version of the collision, as we must assume, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence, that the jury accepted as true the testimony which tends to support the verdict returned.

The court submitted the case to the jury under correct instructions, which told the jury that, if appellee was negligent and appellant was...