Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Glidewell

• Decision Date: 26 February 1940
• Docket Number: No. 4-5800.,4-5800.
• Citation: 137 S.W.2d 237
• Parties: MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. v. GLIDEWELL.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 237

137 S.W.2d 237

MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. v. GLIDEWELL.

No. 4-5800.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 26, 1940.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; Thomas E. Toler, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Hazel Glidewell against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Guy A. Thompson, trustee, for injuries sustained by plaintiff while leaving a coach in which she had been riding as a passenger upon one of defendant's trains. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Henry Donham, of Little Rock, and Richard M. Ryan, of Hot Springs, for appellant.

Kenneth C. Coffelt, of Benton, and Wm. J. Kirby, of Little Rock, for appellee.

FRANK G. SMITH, Justice.

Appellee fell while leaving a coach in which she had been riding as a passenger upon one of appellant's trains. She testified that as she placed her foot upon a stool or step-box provided for the use of passengers, her foot slipped from under her, and that she fell on the brick pavement at the depot, and her consequent injury was occasioned by the fact that there was oil on the foot-box. This testimony was unsupported by any other witness, and was contradicted by that of a number of others, several, at least, of whom were entirely disinterested, their testimony being to the effect that there was no oil on the foot-box, and that appellee's fall was due to her carelessness in leaving the train. The overwhelming preponderance of the testimony is in conflict with that of appellee; but her own testimony, if believed, made a case for the jury as to whether the railroad company was negligent in furnishing an unsuitable and unsafe appliance for the use of passengers in debarking from the train, and whether this negligence had occasioned the injury.

We copy the following recital from the transcript:

"During the selection of the jury the following occurred:

"Mr. Coffelt: Does Mr. Ryan represent you in any business matters or in any of his political matters. He belongs to the Republican party —

"Mr. Ryan: We object to that and ask the court to reprimand counsel for making that statement.

"Court: The jury, of course, will not consider that statement, and the case will be tried according to the law and the testimony.

"Mr. Ryan: Note our exceptions."

We think this admonition of the court was not sufficient to remove the prejudice of the attorney's question. It is conceded, as it must be, that the question was improper; but it is insisted that the admonition of the court was...