Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 16 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 4-4425 |
| Citation | 98 S.W.2d 74,193 Ark. 175 |
| Parties | MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., GUY A. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE v. HUNT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; Jabez M. Smith, Special Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
R. E Wiley and Richard M. Ryan, for appellants.
Gordon E. Young, for appellee.
Appellee 's intestate and one H. H. Marshall were struck and instantly killed by one of appellant's trains at what is called the brickyard crossing in the city of Malvern, on January 12, 1934. She brought this action to recover damages for the death of her husband, and alleged negligence of the trainmen in failing to keep a proper lookout, while passing through the city at an excessive rate of speed, and in failing to give the statutory signals at said crossing. In addition to a general denial of the allegations of the complaint, appellant answered and alleged that said intestate's death was caused by his own negligence and that of said Marshall. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $ 1,750.
For a reversal of the judgment, appellant first says the verdict is not supported by any substantial evidence. The facts leading up to the accident are that said intestate was a mechanic in Mr. Marshall's garage in Malvern; that at Marshall's request he got in a car which had been left in the garage for repair to try to discover the location of the motor trouble while Marshall drove it. Intestate was intently listening to the motor to determine its trouble as Marshall drove the car onto the crossing at about fifteen miles per hour in the path of the onrushing train, traveling at from fifty to sixty miles per hour and both were instantly killed. Two witnesses for appellee testified that the statutory crossing signals were not given for that crossing. A number of other witnesses, both trainmen and non-trainmen, testified for appellant that the signals were given, and that the automatic bell at the crossing was ringing. One of the witnesses for appellee said he was walking along the track about 25 feet from the train as it passed him and that the signals were not given or at least he did not hear them, until just before the collision when there were two short blasts of the whistle, and that he did not hear the locomotive bell or the crossing bell. This makes a disputed question of fact for the determination of the jury which we are not permitted to disregard.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendon v. Kurn
... ... 38474 Supreme Court of Missouri August 27, 1943 ... As ... Modified on Denial of ... Carpenter v. Kurn, 345 Mo. 877, 136 ... S.W.2d 997; Lyons v. Railroad, 190 S.W. 859; ... Titus v. Delano, 210 S.W. 44; Marshall v. Mines ... Ward, 195 Ark. 960, 115 S.W.2d 835; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co ... v. Hunt, 193 Ark. 175, 98 S.W.2d 74; St. Louis-S. F ... Ry. Co. v. Cole, 181 ... ...
-
McKenna v. Austin
...Bargar, 9 Cir., 1926, 1 F.2d 335, 337; Fagerberg v. Phœnix Flour Mills Co., 1937, 50 Ariz. 227, 71 P.2d 1022; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Hunt, 1936, 193 Ark. 175, 98 S.W.2d 74; McKay v. Pacific Bldg. Materials Co., 1937, 156 Or. 578, 68 P. 2d 4 Carey v. Bilby, 8 Cir., 1904, 129 F. 203; The ......
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Powell
... ... to be not merely negative, but positive in its character ... Such was the effect of our opinion as to similar conditions ... in the recent case of Missouri Pacific Rd ... Co. v. Ward, 195 Ark. 966, 115 S.W.2d 835; ... Missouri Pacific Rd. Co., Thompson, Trustee, v ... Hunt, 193 Ark. 175, 98 S.W.2d 74 ... A ... striking example is taken from the testimony of Mr. McWha, ... the driver of the automobile, in which he says substantially ... that he drove down this street to within a few feet of the ... crossing; that it was clear; that there was ... ...
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Powell
...in the recent case of Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ward, 195 Ark. 966, 115 S.W.2d 835, Missouri Pacific R. Co., Thompson, Trustee v. Hunt, 193 Ark. 175, 98 S.W.2d 74. A striking example is taken from the testimony of Mr. McWha, the driver of the automobile, in which he says substantially that he......