Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Co. v. Mechanics' Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 47 |
| Parties | KRUMMEN MOTOR BUS & TAXI COMPANY v. MECHANICS' LUMBER COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Richard M. Mann Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Company sued the Mechanics' Lumber Company to recover damages on account of the alleged negligence of the defendant in an automobile collision whereby the plaintiff's automobile was damaged in the sum of $ 1,000. The defendant answered, denying negligence on its part, and, by way of cross-complaint, asked judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,875 on the ground that its automobile was injured in the collision on account of the negligence of the plaintiff.
Evidence was adduced by each party to sustain its allegations of negligence.
The record shows that an automobile motor-bus of the plaintiff collided with a truck of the defendant in the city of Little Rock, Arkansas. Both motor vehicles were badly damaged. The undisputed proof on the part of the plaintiff shows that it cost $ 534.20 to have its motor-bus repaired. The evidence as to whether or not it was in better or worse condition after it was repaired than it was before the collision occurred is conflicting.
The jury found for the plaintiff and assessed its damages in the sum of one dollar. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the plaintiff has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Buzbee Pugh & Harrison and Floyd Wingo, for appellant.
Price Shofner, for appellee.
HART, C. J., (after stating the facts).
Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the undisputed evidence shows that the motor-bus of the plaintiff sustained substantial injury in the collision, and that a judgment based upon the verdict for nominal damages should be reversed because they were inadequate. Counsel for the defendant concede that the judgment should be reversed, and the parties only differ as to the method of procedure after the reversal of the judgment. Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the verdict as to damages should be set aside and a new trial ordered on the question of damages only. On the other hand, counsel for the defendant insists that, under our practice, when the verdict is set aside a new trial of the whole case should be granted. There is some conflict in the authorities as to whether, where a verdict has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Bell
...and the remanding of a single issue was not allowed. Some courts still hold that it is not permissible. Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Co. v. Mechanics' Lumber Co., 175 Ark. 750, 300 S. W. 389; McKeon v. Central Stamping Co., 264 F. 385 (C. C. A. The Supreme Court, however, has held that a new tr......
-
Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc.
...(supplemental opinion on denial of rehearing); Manzo v. Boulet, 220 Ark. 106, 246 S.W.2d 126 (1952); Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Co. v. Mechanics' Lbr. Co., 175 Ark. 750, 300 S.W. 389 (1927). Our rationale for this longstanding rule is that a verdict is the foundation of the judgment at law an......
-
Smith v. Arkansas Power & Light Company
... ... Kraemer, 172 Ark. 397, 288 S.W ... 903; Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Co. v ... Mechanics' Lumber Co., 175 ... ...
-
Fulbright v. Phipps
... ... effect, a refusal to assess damages. Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Co. v. Mechanics' Lumber Co., 175 Ark ... ...