Mathis v. Magers

Decision Date07 October 1935
Docket Number4-3950
Citation86 S.W.2d 171,191 Ark. 373
PartiesMATHIS v. MAGERS
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; G. E Keck, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Wils Davis, Virgil Greene and W. W. Hughes, for appellants.

Harrison Smith & Taylor, for appellees.

Action by Earl Magers against J. H. Mathis and others, doing business as the Mathis Bus Line. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.

OPINION

JOHNSON, C. J.

This suit was instituted by appellee against appellants, a copartnership, doing business as Mathis Bus Line, in the Mississippi Circuit Court to compensate an alleged injury suffered by appellee in a collision between his automobile and appellants' passenger bus while traversing public highway number 18 on April 28, 1933. The trial resulted in favor of appellee and a consequent judgment in the sum of $ 3,000, from which this appeal comes.

The testimony on behalf of appellee, when viewed in the light most favorable to him, shows that on April 28, 1933, he was driving his automobile going from Blytheville to Dell and was driving at a moderate rate of speed when appellants' passenger bus, which was being driven in the opposite direction, ran into appellee's car and demolished it and inflicted upon appellee very serious and permanent injuries. Appellants do not contend that the jury's finding of liability is not supported by substantial testimony therefore, on this phase of the case, little need be said. Appellants do contend, however, very earnestly that the jury's award of $ 3,000 is grossly excessive, and to dispose of this contention it is necessary to detail the testimony on this phase of the case at some length. Appellee testified that by the collision he was rendered unconscious; that when consciousness returned he was bleeding profusely and was very sick; that a big gash was cut upon his head just over the eyes; that his nose was mashed, some of his teeth knocked out, and that he was suffering severely from pains in his back and hips; that because of said injuries he was confined at his home until May 3, 1933, when he entered a hospital at Blytheville; that during the interim appellee suffered severe pains in his back, hips and chest. Subsequently appellee entered Campbell's Hospital at Memphis, Tenn., where X-ray examinations were effected, and on or about July 6 he was put into a Bradsford Frame and remained therein for 21 days with weights suspended to his legs, during which time he suffered severely. Appellee further testified that prior to his alleged injuries he slept well at night without sedatives but since receipt of his injuries he has been required constantly to use sedatives to induce sleep and rest. Appellee has expended $ 1,005.95 for hospital fees, doctor bills and medicine.

Dr. J. L. Tidwell testified that he treated appellee subsequent to his injury in the car collision, and that in his opinion he is permanently injured. Dr. J. S. Speed, of the Campbell Hospital of Memphis, testified that appellee is suffering from hypertrophic and traumatic spondylitis, and that an operation is necessary to relieve him. Other testimony was heard, but the above suffices to show the trend of it.

The rule is well settled in this State that,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hancock
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1938
    ... ... 516, 67 S.W.2d 602; ... Cunningham v. Union Pac. Ry., 4 Utah 206, 7 ... P. 795; Barlow v. Foster, 149 Wis. 613, 136 ... N.W. 822; Mathis v. Magers, 191 Ark. 373, ... 86 S.W.2d 171; Smith v. Arkansas P. & L ... Co., 191 Ark. 389, 86 S.W.2d 411 ...          The ... ...
  • Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hancock
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1938
    ...516, 67 S.W.2d 602; Cunningham v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 4 Utah 206, 7 P. 795; Barlow v. Foster, 149 Wis. 613, 136 N.W. 822; Mathis v. Magers, 191 Ark. 373, 86 S.W.2d 171; Smith v. Arkansas P. & L. Co., 191 Ark. 389, 86 S.W. 2d The trend of the majority opinion indicates to my mind that the ju......
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hampton
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1938
    ... ... 516, 67 S.W.2d 602; ... Cunningham v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., ... 4 Utah 206, 7 P. 795; Barlow v. Foster, 149 ... Wis. 613, 136 N.W. 822; Mathis v. Magers, ... 191 Ark. 373, 86 S.W.2d 171; Smith v. Arkansas ... P. & L. Co., 191 Ark. 389, 86 S.W.2d 411 ...          Where ... there ... ...
  • Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hampton
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1938
    ...516, 67 S.W.2d 602; Cunningham v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 4 Utah 206, 7 P. 795; Barlow v. Foster, 149 Wis. 613, 136 N.W. 822; Mathis v. Magers, 191 Ark. 373, 86 S.W.2d 171; Smith v. Arkansas P. & L. Co., 191 Ark. 389, 86 S.W.2d Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the question is to be de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT