Guile v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 07 July 1924
• Docket Number: 106
• Citation: 263 S.W. 403,165 Ark. 221
• Parties: GUILE v. SNYDER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

263 S.W. 403

165 Ark. 221

GUILE v. SNYDER

No. 106

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 7, 1924

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; T. E. Toler, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.

Brouse & McDaniel, for appellant.

J W. Westbrook, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH J.

On December 1, 1922, appellant was one of a large number of persons who attended a funeral. After the burial the crowd began to disperse, and a Dr. Walton came to appellant and told him that two ladies had driven to the funeral in a Dodge car, and that the lady who drove the car had become ill and was unable to drive the car home. Dr. Walton asked appellant if he could not drive the Dodge car for the ladies. Appellant answered that he could not, but if some one had driven a Ford who could drive a Dodge he would drive the Ford home and the other party could drive the Dodge. This arrangement was made and the ladies got in the Ford car with appellant, and they started home.

In leaving the cemetery it was necessary for the car to climb a hill, and, about the time appellant reached the top of the hill, the left hind hub of the car broke. He was thus left without a brake or control of the car, and it started rolling down the hill. Appellant could not stop the car, but he sought to retard its progress down the hill by cutting the car into the ruts of the road. There was nothing else he could do to stop the car or to retard it. He was afraid to turn the car out of the road for fear of overturning it. At the foot of the hill there was a congestion of vehicles, and there was also a little bridge on which there were a number of pedestrians at the time. Appellant sought to avoid running into this crowd, but he was unable to blow the horn, as it was out of order.

As the car rolled down the hill, appellant discovered a tree, and he attempted to steer the car so that the back end of it would strike the tree and the car would thus be stopped. Just as he was about to do this, appellant heard some one call out, "Pull up! Pull off of him!" and he discovered that his car had jammed up against the running board of another Ford, and it caught appellee's leg, and a painful but not serious injury was inflicted.

Appellee brought this suit to recover damages for the injury thus inflicted, and a verdict was returned in his favor, and from the judgment pronounced thereon is this appeal.

Appellee asked two instructions, both of which were given. These were instructions defining negligence and stating the measure of damages. At the request of appellant, the court gave instructions on the burden of proof, and instructions defining negligence.

No exceptions were saved to the instructions given, and the only exception saved to any instruction which was refused was by appellant to the refusal of the court to give an instruction directing the jury to return a verdict in his favor.

It is conceded that the only question in the case is whether the testimony is legally sufficient to support the verdict.

Appellee's hearing is impaired to some extent, and his attention was not attracted to the rolling car. He was sitting on the running board of a car which was parked on the side of the road, and he was oblivious to any danger until he was struck.

Appellant was thoroughly familiar with the operation of Ford cars, and had driven one for ten years. He had never driven the car in...