Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. Franks
| Decision Date | 19 January 1914 |
| Parties | PRESCOTT & N. W. R. CO. v. FRANKS. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hempstead County; Jacob M. Carter, Judge.
Action by J. J. Franks against the Prescott & Northwestern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Appellee instituted this suit against appellant to recover damages for personal injuries which he received while attempting to cross appellant's railroad track at a public crossing at Highland, in Hempstead county, Ark. The circumstances under which appellee received his injuries are testified to by himself substantially as follows: The main line of appellant's line of railway at Highland runs north and south. There is a public road running parallel to the railroad from north to south on the west side of the railroad, and this public road turns and runs square across the railroad from west to east. On the west side of the main line there is a switch which connects with the railroad 15 or 20 feet south of the crossing, and extends north about 150 yards to a cannery. The dirt road is parallel to this switch, and is about 15 or 20 feet west of it, and at the crossing where the injury occurred it turns and extends across both the switch and the main track. The depot is situated between the switch and the main track, and from 50 to 100 feet north of the crossing in question. At the time of the injury, the switch track extending to the cannery was filled with cars, to which was attached an engine standing just north of the crossing. In July, 1912, appellee was engaged in hauling peaches to the cannery, and his work was all on the west side of the railroad. The tires of the wheels of his wagon became loose, and it became necessary for him to carry the wagon to the blacksmith shop at Highland, on the east side of the railroad, to have them shrunk. He drove south on the dirt road parallel with the switch track, and when he got within 35 or 40 yards of the crossing he stopped his team to see if there was any train approaching from either way. He did not see or hear any train, and started on across the railroad. The engine attached to the string of cars on the switch track was standing still, and made a little noise on account of steam escaping from it. Appellee could not see a train approaching from the north because his view in that direction was obstructed by the string of cars on the switch track. Not seeing or hearing any train, he started across the track, and just as his horses placed their forefeet on the switch track in front of the engine standing there, a train came up on the main line from behind the cars on the switch track. This train did not give any signals, and was running towards the south. It was within about 12 feet of appellee before he saw it. When his team saw the approaching train, they surged backwards, and then whirled and started to run. Appellee saw that his wagon was about to turn over, and jumped from it. Most of his weight, as he struck the ground, was on one leg, and his hip was knocked out of place and broken up. He fainted, and does not know what became of the passing train. He was first treated by a local physician for something like two weeks, and was then carried to Texarkana for treatment at a sanatorium. He was confined to his bed for 42 days, and suffered great pain. He stated that his team was gentle and did not ordinarily become frightened at trains. He also says he spent $135 for medical services, resulting from his injury. At the time of the trial, in April, 1913, he stated that he still suffered pain, and that he is not able to follow his vocation, which is that of farming. Other witnesses for him, who saw the accident, corroborated him in his statement as to how the injury occurred. His attending physician testified that his injuries are permanent, and that the injured limb will always be about an inch and a half shorter than the other, and will be weaker. Several persons who saw the accident testified for the appellant, and say that appellee's team became frightened before he started across the railroad crossing, and that no engine was approaching on the main line at the time. They state there was a train down at the depot which whistled two or three times, and that this caused appellee's team to jump forward and then to whirl to one side; that appellee then jumped out of the wagon and thereby sustained his injuries. They say that appellee's team became frightened at the blasts of the whistle which were given by the train standing at the depot, and that appellee lost control of his team.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee for $2,000, and the case is here on appeal.
McRae & Tompkins, of Prescott, for appellant. W. P. Feazel, of Nashville, for appellee.
HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is first earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that there is no testimony of a substantial character to support the verdict. They claim that the verdict of the jury has only a scintilla of evidence to support it. Several disinterested witnesses testified in favor of appellant, and state that they saw the accident. They all say that appellee was injured while about 40 feet or more away from the crossing, and that his injuries resulted from his team becoming frightened and running away; that his team became frightened at two short blasts given by an engine standing still at the depot, and that no train was approaching on the main line at the time appellee received his injuries. These witnesses all detail the accident in substantially the same way. Their testimony was reasonable, and consistent, but it cannot be said, by any means, to be undisputed. Appellee himself states that his horses had placed their forefeet upon the side track before they became frightened and that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial