Oliphant v. Hamm

• Decision Date: 12 January 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 94.)
• Citation: 267 S.W. 563
• Parties: OLIPHANT et al. v. HAMM.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 563

267 S.W. 563

OLIPHANT et al. v. HAMM.

(No. 94.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 12, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County; Jas. Cochran, Judge.

Action by Johnnie Hamm, by A. L. Hamm, his next friend, against O. C. Oliphant and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Johnnie Hamm, by A. L. Hamm, his father and next friend, instituted this action against O. C. Oliphant and Robert Oliphant to recover damages on account of their alleged negligence in driving an automobile against him while he was walking along the street.

Mrs. Myrtle Hamm, an aunt of Johnnie Hamm, was the principal witness for the plaintiff. According to her testimony, Johnnie's mother died when he was an infant, and she took him to raise. He lived with her in the old town of Booneville in October, 1921, at the time he was injured by being run over by an automobile driven by Robert Oliphant. Johnnie went into the kitchen and got a piece of pie from her. He then went out into the street and started west on it. She went into the front part of the house and saw him going along the street in the beaten roadway where pedestrians usually walked. There was no sidewalk on the street. As Johnnie walked along the street Robert Oliphant drove his automobile along the street behind him. He did not give any signal of any kind of the approach of the automobile. Just before the automobile struck him, she saw Lee Austin driving an automobile on the same street approaching Johnnie, and Austin stopped his car and motioned to Johnnie. Just as Austin did this, Oliphant struck Johnnie with his automobile and severely injured him.

According to the testimony of Lee Austin, as he drove into the street towards the residence where Johnnie Hamm lived, he saw the latter coming towards him along the beaten pathway of the street where footmen usually walked. Robert Oliphant was behind Johnnie, driving a Packard automobile belonging to O. C. Oliphant. Austin thought that Oliphant was going to run over Johnnie, and pulled his own automobile to the right of the street, and motioned to Johnnie to come towards him. Just at that instant Oliphant's automobile struck Johnnie and ran over his body. Oliphant gave no signal of any kind of his approach, and the Packard automobile he was driving moved without making any noise scarcely.

According to the testimony of Johnnie Hamm, he saw Lee Austin driving towards him and motioning to him after he stopped his car. He started towards Austin, but had not yet taken a step when the car driven by Robert Oliphant hit him and knocked him down. Oliphant gave no warning that he was approaching in his car, and the witness did not know that he was behind him until the car struck him.

A physician testified that Johnnie had two or three ribs broken, and was otherwise bruised and injured.

According to the testimony of Robert Oliphant, he was driving slowly, and sounded his horn as he approached Johnnie Hamm. Lee Austin drove into the same street in an automobile from the opposite direction, and stopped his car near the sidewalk. He motioned to Johnnie to come to him, and the latter did so. The witness thought that Johnnie was going to stand there and talk to Austin; but just as his car passed them Johnnie suddenly turned and stepped in front of the car. The bumper knocked him down; but neither of the wheels passed over him.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $300, and from the judgment rendered the defendants have duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Kincannon & Kincannon, of Booneville, for appellants.

Evans & Evans, of Booneville, for appellee.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is first contended by counsel for the defendants that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict.

The relative rights of pedestrians and motor vehicles in a public street are equal, and each is obliged to act with due regard to the movements of the other. Neither is called upon to anticipate negligence of the other. Johnnie Hamm was 12 years of age, and was possessed of the mental and bodily vigor usual to boys of his age at the...