Ford v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway

Decision Date15 April 1899
Citation50 S.W. 864,66 Ark. 363
PartiesFORD v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court HANCE N. HUTTON, Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The plaintiff, M. H. Ford, was the owner of a cow, which was struck and killed by an engine and train of the defendant company. The injury occurred within the corporate limits of Marianna, a town of from 1,500 to 1,800 inhabitants. The cow was killed near the depot of the company, about 500 feet south of the public crossing on Tennessee street, and about 600 feet north of the crossing on Louisiana street. Trice's gin is on the side of the railroad just north of the crossing on Louisiana street, and south of the depot. One of the witnesses described the track through that portion of the town as follows: "The track is perfectly straight from Trice's gin north clear through the town. There is a curve just south of Louisiana street. There are a lot of houses and sheds and other obstructions along the east side of the track from Trice's gin up to within a short distance of the depot, and on the west side there is a long line of lumber piles near the track. From the depot north nearly to the edge of the town, the fences and houses are built out near the railroad track, many of them within ten or fifteen feet of the track." On the question of the speed of the train at the the time the cow was struck, the engineer testified that at the time of the accident he was in charge of the pay train, and that it was running through the town at the rate of eighteen or twenty miles an hour. The train had no regular schedule time, but when it came into Marianna on that day had lost a little time, and he was trying to make it up. "We usually," he said, "run slow through towns. I don't believe I ever did run through town as fast as we run that train that day. We had only the engine tender and two coaches, with air brakes. With that train and air brakes I could stop the train running at the rate of thirty miles an hour in about 150 feet, and at the rate of ten miles an hour in seventy-five or 100 feet, and at five miles an hour in about forty feet." He also said that he was keeping a lookout, and saw the cow when she came from behind a box car and upon the track, about thirty-four feet ahead of the engine, too close to avoid striking her.

The agent of the company testified that the train was running faster than he "ever saw a train go through town before." It was, he said, "running so fast that it threw the cow up so high I thought it would be thrown over on the depot platform, and I ran back from it, and I knew that the train whizzed by me faster than I ever saw a train run by that depot."

The man employed by defendant as porter at its depot testified on this point as follows: "The train was running very fast when it struck the cow and passed the depot. I can't say how many miles an hour it was running, but it just went by 'whew!' and I could hardly see anything but dust. It was running faster, I think, than the regular speed of the passenger trains on this road. I did not hear either the whistle or bell. I heard her blow at the crossing below the gin, but not after that."

Another witness said: "I heard the engine blow up at the crossing beyond the gin, and I started across the track at the Tennessee street crossing with my wagon, thinking I had plenty of time to cross, and the train came so fast that it like to have caught me. It was running very fast; faster than I ever saw a train run before. Neither the bell was ringing nor the whistle blowing. Neither were sounded after the blow at the crossing south of the gin. I was right on the side of the track when it passed, and could have heard it had it blown or whistled."

There was other evidence to the same effect that the usual speed of passenger trains on that road...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Pennington
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1977
    ...two crossings. The evidence on proximate cause was sufficient to justify the submission of the speed issue. See Ford v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 66 Ark. 363, 50 S.W. 864. II The trial court gave AMI 1802, based on Ark.Stat.Ann. § 73-1002 (Supp. 1975). Appellant contends that the evide......
  • Davis v. Scott
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1921
    ... ... of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway ... Company, then being operated under ... L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Denty, supra; ... Ford v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 66 Ark ... 363; ... ...
  • Marshall v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1906
    ...for the jury. 130 U.S. 652; 152 U.S. 107; 149 U.S. 44; 2 Labatt, M. &. S. 2377-80; 1 Ib. 814; 39 Ark. 491; 62 Ark. 69; 63 Ark. 94; 66 Ark. 363; 70 Ark. 230; 71 Ark. Ib. 445. Failure to use due care to inspect the cars or to give notice of their defects, and also permitting cinders and clink......
  • Rodgers v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1905
    ... ... Catlett v. Railway Co., 57 Ark. 461; ... Ford v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 66 Ark ... 363; Burns v. St. Louis" S.W. Ry ... Co. ante p. 10 ...        \xC2" ... ...
  • 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