Hall v. W. E. Cox & Sons
Decision Date | 14 July 1941 |
Docket Number | 4-6433 |
Parties | HALL v. W. E. COX & SONS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Glover & Glover, for appellant.
Appellant, J. B. Hall, sued appellees, a partnership, to compensate personal injuries growing out of a collision between an automobile in which appellant was riding, driven by appellant's son, and a Chevrolet truck driven by an employee of appellees. The negligent acts of appellees alleged in the complaint were that on September 11, 1939 appellant accompanied by his son, Kenneth Hall, his wife and two others, in a Chevrolet coach traveling west on paved highway No. 67 at a speed of 35 or 40 miles per hour, about ten miles from the city of Hope, Arkansas, came up behind a truck driven by appellees' employee, Floyd Green, driving in the same direction; that when they had reached a point about "30 feet" to the rear of the truck, the driver of the truck negligently and without any signal or warning suddenly stopped the truck in the middle of the highway and as a result appellant "was unable to stop his car or pass the truck on the left-hand side of the highway and as a result the cars collided and caused plaintiff's injuries."
Appellees answered with a general denial and pleaded contributory negligence of appellant.
Upon a jury trial there was a verdict in favor of appellant, signed by nine members of the jury panel, in the amount of $ 750. On the same day this verdict was rendered, appellees filed motion for a new trial and among the grounds alleged in said motion were that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence, contrary to the law, and that errors were committed in giving, and in refusing, certain instructions, and that the verdict was excessive.
Upon a hearing the trial court granted appellees' motion for a new trial and set aside the judgment, assigning no specific ground or grounds therefor, and this appeal is from that order, appellant having stipulated that if the judgment granting the new trial be affirmed judgment absolute may be rendered in this court under § 2735 of Pope's Digest. Appellees have not favored us with a brief.
Appellant earnestly urges here that the cause was submitted to the jury under proper instructions, on conflicting testimony, and that the jury having decided the issues of fact in appellant's favor, the trial court erred in setting the judgment aside and granting a new trial. We cannot agree with this contention.
It has long been the established rule that the trial court not only has the power, but that it is his duty, to set aside a jury's verdict and grant a motion for a new trial if he concludes that the verdict is against the clear preponderance of the evidence.
In McDonnell v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co., 98 Ark. 334, 135 S.W. 925, this court said:
And in Twist v. Mullinix, 126 Ark. 427, 190 S.W. 851, one of our leading cases on the subject, this court said: "After the jury has concluded its deliberations and returned its verdict, if there is a motion for a new trial setting up that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or that it is contrary to law, or both, it is then the province of the trial court to review the verdict and to determine whether or not the jury has correctly applied the law as contained in the court's instructions, and whether or not the verdict is responsive to the preponderance of the evidence. . . .
And in Wilhelm v. Collison, 133 Ark. 166, 202 S.W. 28, this court again said:
While it is our view that the cause was submitted under proper instructions, the evidence upon which the verdict was based was in sharp conflict. The evidence on the part of appellant is that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Clark
...sustained by sufficient evidence * * *' and the trial court did not state which ground he granted the motion on. In Hall v. W. E. Cox & Sons, 202 Ark. 909, 154 S.W.2d 19, a jury verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and was set aside and a new trial granted upon the defendant's mot......
-
Stanley v. Calico Rock Ice & Electric Co., 8334.
...to sustain the verdict, we must affirm the action of the trial court, if it can be supported on this ground. Hall v. W. E. Cox & Sons, 202 Ark. 909, 154 S.W. 2d For reversal of the judgment sustaining the motion for a new trial appellants say in their brief: "if there is such evidence in th......
-
Stanley v. Calico Rock Ice & Electric Company
... ... sustain the verdict, we must affirm the action of the trial ... court, if it can be supported on this ground. Hall ... v. W. E. Cox & Sons, 202 Ark. 909, 154 S.W.2d 19 ... For ... reversal of the judgment sustaining the motion for a new ... ...
-
General Motors Corp. v. Tate
...supported on any ground alleged in the motion. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Clark, 246 Ark. 824, 440 S.W.2d 198. Hall v. W. E. Cox & Sons, 202 Ark. 909, 154 S.W.2d 19. The motion specified six grounds. The order granting the new trial simply recited that 'it is the opinion of this court......