Livingston v. Baker
| Decision Date | 03 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4-6451 |
| Citation | 155 S.W.2d 340,202 Ark. 1097 |
| Parties | LIVINGSTON v. BAKER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; G. E Keck, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reid & Evrard, for appellant.
Denver L. Dudley, for appellee.
On January 25, 1938, a collision occurred at the intersection of Division street and Chickasawba avenue, in the city of Blytheville, between a truck, owned by appellant and being operated in his business by his employee, and a car belonging to and being driven by appellee, resulting in personal injuries to appellee and damage to his car. He brought this action to recover damages therefor. Issue was joined on the allegations of the complaint and a trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $ 7,735 with interest at 6 per cent. from January 29, 1941.
On this appeal only one assignment of error is relied on by appellant for a reversal of the judgment against him. He says the court erred in giving instruction No. 6, which was appellee's requested instruction No. 3, and is as follows:
Criticism of this instruction is particularly directed to the language "When the driver of a motor vehicle sees danger ahead, or it is reasonably apparent if he is keeping a proper lookout, or if he is warned of approaching imminent danger," then it is his duty to bring his vehicle under control and to stop it if necessary to avoid the danger. We see no objection to this language when applied to the undisputed facts in this case or to the facts which the jury found by its verdict to be true, even though disputed. As stated above, appellee was traveling north on Division street and appellant's truck was being driven west on Chickasawba. There is some dispute as to the rate of speed each was traveling, but the driver of the truck admitted he was driving at from 25 to 30 miles per hour, and, although he saw a big traffic sign on Chickasawba with the word "Slow" on it some 150 feet east of the intersection, he paid no attention to it and continued west without slackening his speed until he was in about two feet of appellee's car, when he slammed on his brakes. He also testified that, when he was some distance east of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Miller
...such control as to be able to check the speed or stop it absolutely, if necessary, in the threatened emergency.' Citing Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097, 155 S.W.2d 340. Appellant complains of the second part of the instruction, contending that it tells the jury that in certain circumstan......
-
Kisor v. Tulsa Rendering Co.
...avoid injury to others when danger is apparent. Craighead v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 652, 656; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097, 155 S.W.2d 340; Loda v. Raines, 193 Ark. 513, 517, 100 S.W.2d 973; Lockhart v. Ross, 191 Ark. 743, 752, 87 S.W.2d When a person is sudden......
-
Dearing v. Ferrell
...avoid injury to others when danger is apparent. Craighead v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 652, 656; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097, 155 S.W.2d 340; Loda v. Raines, 193 Ark. 513, 517, 100 S.W. 2d 973; Lockhart v. Ross, 191 Ark. 743, 752, 87 S.W.2d Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 75-......
-
Brown v. Parker, 4-9240
...1144, 24 S.W.2d 960; Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505, 37 S.W.2d 94; Halbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885, 50 S.W.2d 243; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097, 155 S.W.2d 340. In Murray v. Jackson, supra, this Court said, 'In the absence of a statute or ordinance regulating the matter, it is th......