Missouri Pacific Transportation Co. v. Bell
Decision Date | 05 December 1938 |
Docket Number | 4-5262 |
Citation | 122 S.W.2d 958,197 Ark. 250 |
Parties | MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO. v. BELL |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge; reversed.
Judgment affirmed.
House Moses & Holmes, T. J. Gentry, Jr., and Eugene R. Warren, for appellant.
F D. Goza and J. H. Lookadoo, for appellee.
OPINION
Appellee, a passenger on one of the Missouri Pacific buses on October 20, 1937, from Little Rock to Gifford, Arkansas, brought this action against appellants to recover damages for personal injuries she alleges she sustained when she fell in the bus while alighting therefrom. The negligence alleged in the complaint was that the driver stopped the bus for her to alight at her destination and that he causing her to fall and receive severe and painful injuries. Appellants answered, denying generally and specifically all the material allegations of negligence and injuries alleged. Trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $ 15,000. The case is here on appeal.
We think the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for appellants at their request. The complaint alleged a cause of action, but the proof failed to sustain it, in that it failed to establish that, after the bus first came to a stop to permit the appellee, her husband and little girl to alight, it was started again and was stopped with a sudden, unnecessary and violent jerk causing her to fall and receive all the terrible injuries described in the evidence.
Her testimony on the question of negligence is, when asked how she received her injuries, she answered: Again she was asked by her counsel:
This was all the testimony she gave as to the negligence of the driver. Her husband, a witness in her behalf, testified as follows: Another witness, who claims to have driven his car up to the intersection of a side road with highway 67 on which the bus was traveling, stated that the bus came to a stop, rolled a few feet and stopped again, but he did not testify as to any sudden, unnecessary or violent jerk of the bus in either stop. This was all the evidence on the subject for appellee. Seven other passengers on the bus and the driver, appellant Wright, testified that the bus came to a full stop in the ordinary way without any jerk, that the driver turned on the lights, opened the door and got on the outside to assist appellee, her husband and little girl to alight, and that the bus did not move and was not stopped again while they were alighting. But assuming the testimony of these seven disinterested passengers, constituting as it undoubtedly does the great preponderance of the evidence, testified falsely, and that appellee and her husband, both vitally interested in the result of the action, testified truthfully, still it is insufficient to show that appellee was thrown by reason of a second stop which was unusual, unnecessary or a violent jerk. They do not contend that the motor was put in gear to start the bus a second time, but only that it was stopped on a slight decline of about 3/4 inch in two feet and was permitted to roll down this decline about 4 or 5 feet when it was again stopped by the application of the brakes. Now, if the bus moved from a dead stop down such a slight decline for only 4 or 5 feet, it would seem to be a physical impossibility for the bus to have gained enough momentum or speed to have caused a sudden, unnecessary or violent jerk, sufficient to upset a normal person standing in the aisle and cause the terribly disabling injuries to appellee, about which she and her witnesses have testified.
When asked by her counsel as to what "really" caused her to fall, she answered: "The stopping of the bus;" and when prompted further by counsel, she said "The sudden stopping of the bus." She says nothing about the second stopping of the bus. It is undoubtedly true that appellee fell in the bus, and it may be true that she was injured in the fall, but the proof fails to show that it was the result of the second stopping of the bus, or that the second stopping, if any, was sudden, unnecessary or violent, and these were the grounds of negligence relied on in the complaint and without proof of which no recovery can be sustained.
At one place in her testimony appellee, in answer to a question as to the statement she made at the time she got off the bus that her foot slipped, testified: That was what she said right at the time of the accident. Whether her injuries were the result of her feet slipping out from under her or whether she fell when the bus stopped is not material to the inquiry here. Before there can be a recovery the negligence alleged must be established by proof, and as we have shown, it is not sufficient. Juries are not permitted to base their verdicts on speculation and conjecture, and as to whether there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict is a question of law and not of fact. Murphy v. Murphy, 144 Ark. 429, 222 S.W. 721; Fair Store No. 32 v. Hadley Milling Company, 148 Ark. 209, 229 S.W. 727.
For the error of the court in refusing to direct a verdict for appellant, the judgment is reversed, and, as the cause appears to have been fully developed, it is dismissed.
MEHAFFY J. (dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority in reversing and dismissing this case. The majority opinion says:
"Whether her injuries were the result of her feet slipping out from under her, or whether she fell when the bus stopped, is not material to the injury here. "
It is, also, said in the opinion: "But assuming the testimony of these seven distinterested passengers, constituting as it undoubtedly does the great preponderance of the evidence, testified falsely, and that appellee and her husband, both vitally interested in the result of the action, testified truthfully, still it is insufficient to show that appellee was thrown by reason of a second stop which was unusual, unnecessary, or a violent jerk."
It is not a question of whether it was an unusual, violent jerk, nor is there any question here as to who told the truth. That question is settled by the jury's verdict. This court and practically all of the other appellate courts in the country, have held that carriers of passengers must exercise the highest degree of care for the protection of their passengers, and if guilty of slight negligence, which causes the injury of a passenger, the carrier is liable.
"A common carrier of passengers by street car is required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care which may reasonably be expected of intelligent and prudent persons employed in that business, in view...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tate v. State
...evidence must be substantial, and that is a matter of law. Murphy v. Murphy, 144 Ark. 429, 222 S.W. 721; Missouri Pacific Transportation Company v. Bell, 197 Ark. 250, 122 S.W.2d 958. ...
-
Tate v. State
... ... Murphy v. Murphy, 144 Ark ... 429, 222 S.W. 721; Missouri ... Murphy v. Murphy, 144 Ark ... 429, 222 S.W. 721; Missouri Pacific ... Murphy, 144 Ark ... 429, 222 S.W. 721; Missouri Pacific Transportation ... 429, 222 S.W. 721; Missouri Pacific Transportation ... Company v. Bell ... ...
-
Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Bell
... ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; Dexter Bush, Judge ... Action by Azalee Bell against the Missouri Pacific Transportation Company and another for injuries sustained when she fell in the bus while alighting therefrom. From a judgment for the plaintiff, ... ...
-
State Highway Commission v. Byars
...is substantial, when he has not given a satisfactory explanation of how he arrived at the conclusion. In Missouri Pacific Transportation Co. v. Bell, 197 Ark. 250, 122 S.W.2d 958, 960, this court said: 'Juries are not permitted to base their verdicts on speculation and conjecture, and as to......