Howe v. Little

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MCHANEY, J.
• Citation: Howe v. Little, 34 S.W.2d 218, 182 Ark. 1083 (Ark. 1931)
• Decision Date: 12 January 1931
• Docket Number: 84
• Parties: HOWE v. LITTLE

34 S.W.2d 218

182 Ark. 1083

HOWE v. LITTLE

No. 84

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 12, 1931

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; W. D. Davenport, Judge reversed.

Judgment reversed, and cause dismissed.

Brewer & Cracraft, for appellant.

K. T Sutton, for appellee.

OPINION

MCHANEY, J.

Appellee sued appellant for damages for personal injuries sustained by him while riding on the running board of appellant's automobile as a guest, either invited or self-invited. He alleged that appellant was negligent in placing a board, or boat seat, about 30 inches long, on the bumper or fender of the car, and in leaving it there in such a way that when the car was moving it fell off, and in some way struck and broke his leg just above the ankle. The facts are that appellant and his brother had been fishing, and, on returning, appellant had run his car in some soft or loose sand and become stalled. Appellee was passing and assisted them in getting out. A boat seat was taken from the car, and used in digging the loose sand from around the wheels to give them better traction. After using the boat seat in this way perhaps more than once, as the car was stalled two or three times before getting on firm ground, it was placed by some one somewhere on the car, but not in it. Appellee was permitted to ride standing on the running board on his way to a nearby town. No witness knew just where the board was placed, whether on the bumper, fender, or running board of the car, and no witness, including appellee, was able to tell just how the accident happened, which resulted in the breaking of his leg. He says he saw the board lying behind the car immediately after being struck. At the conclusion of appellee's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, appellant requested a directed verdict on the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict for appellee. The court refused so to do, submitted the matter to the jury, and the result was a verdict and judgment against appellant for $ 1,000. Wherefore this appeal.

We are of the opinion that appellant was not guilty of actionable negligence under the facts. Whether appellee was an invited guest, self-invited guest or a licensee, the rule of law in this State is that the driver of the automobile is only bound to exercise ordinary care in operating it for the safety of his guest. Black v. Goldweber, 172 Ark 862, 291 S.W. 76; Bennett v. Bell, 176 Ark. 690, 3 S.W.2d 996. In the latter case we said: "The driver of an automobile or motor vehicle is bound to the exercise of ordinary care in the operation thereof for the safe transportation of his guests and other passengers and to avoid personal injury to them, and this duty extends to all such passengers, whether guests by...