Ford v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway
Decision Date | 15 April 1899 |
Citation | 50 S.W. 864,66 Ark. 363 |
Parties | FORD v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY |
Court | Arkansas 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: 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, 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:
Another witness said:
There was other evidence to the same effect that the usual speed of passenger trains on that road...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Pennington
...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
... ... 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.
...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.
... ... 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" ... ...