Saliba v. Saliba
Decision Date | 05 November 1928 |
Docket Number | 235 |
Citation | 11 S.W.2d 774,178 Ark. 250 |
Parties | SALIBA v. SALIBA |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Osceola District; G. E. Keck Judge; judgment modified.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The plaintiff, appellee, has recovered damages in this action against the defendant, appellant, for injuries in consequence of his wrist being badly cut by a broken glass while assisting, upon the invitation of the defendant, in pushing his automobile out of a ditch. The rear wheels of the Studebaker car in which appellant was driving with his brother, Dr. G. M. Saliba, had slipped or fallen into the ditch on the side of the street. Appellee, in another car with two others, came along, and proffered assistance, and were invited to get in behind the car and push or help get it out. While appellee, in the middle between the two others was so engaged, the car had been pushed to the top of the ditch, and suddenly lurched and rolled backwards. He put up his hands to help hold it, and either put them against the glass of the back window or they slipped against the glass breaking it, and his wrists were badly cut. The complaint alleged the negligence,
The answer denied any negligence, and alleged that plaintiff assumed the risk by voluntarily exposing himself thereto, and also pleaded contributory negligence.
The tendons and nerves on appellee's right wrist were cut through to the bone, and, after two surgical operations and much pain suffered, the fingers of his hand are so drawn now as to resemble a claw. The hand is permanently injured, and can never be of much use, and pain may be suffered on account of it at intervals from now on.
Appellant was present in court, and did not testify. The court instructed the jury, giving, over appellant's objections, instructions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, as follows.
The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment thereon this appeal is prosecuted.
Judgment affirmed.
Moore, Gray & Burrow, Reid & Everard and Everett B. Gibson, Jr., for appellant.
Bruce Ivy and J. T. Coston, for appellee.
OPINION
KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts).
It is insisted, first, for reversal, and the question was raised by both the demurrer and the answer, that the court was without jurisdiction to try the cause, it being against a citizen and resident of the other judicial district of the county. The process, however, was issued and served upon the defendant in the district of the county where the suit was filed, and the fact that defendant was a resident and citizen of the other judicial district of the county did not deprive the court of the district where the suit was brought and the defendant was found of jurisdiction of the action, which was a transitory one. It is true the act creating the two judicial districts of Mississippi County, act 81 of 1901, and the amendatory act 468 of 1919, contain the provision, § 4 of the original act and § 1 of the amendatory act, that "no citizen of either the Osceola or the Chickasawba District of said county shall be liable to be sued in any action in said courts, in the other district." But § 6 of the original act provides that, in order to ascertain the jurisdiction of actions cognizable in the circuit and chancery courts, "the said districts for all purposes * * * shall be considered as separate and distinct counties and the mode and place for trying suits and determining causes shall be determined by the general law applicable to different counties." It is further provided that certain processes shall run through the whole county, but that none, except subpoenas for witnesses, criminal processes and executions issued from the circuit court and chancery court of the Osceola District, shall be served on any citizen or resident of the Chickasawba District. If there were no provision in the act except the one of the fourth section, that no citizen of either of the districts shall be liable to be sued in any action in the courts in the other district, appellant's contention would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Pratt
...F. 250; The Argo, 9 Cir., 210 F. 872; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wallace, 91 Tenn. 35, 17 S.W. 882, 14 L.R.A. 548; Saliba v. Saliba, 178 Ark. 250, 11 S.W. 2d 774, 61 A.L.R. 1348; 15 Am.Jur., pages 586-588; Byington v. Lemmons, Fed.Cas.No.2,264a. Cf. Mobile & N. O. R. Co. v. Williams, 221 Ala......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Phillips
...355, 413 S.W.2d 657. Lynch v. Stephens, 179 Ark. 118, 14 S.W.2d 257; McLendon v. Johnson, 243 Ark. 218, 419 S.W.2d 309; Saliba v. Saliba, 178 Ark. 250, 11 S.W.2d 774; Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. McGibboney, 245 Ark. 1016, 436 S.W.2d 824; Reliable Life Insurance Co. v. Elby, 247 Ar......
-
Parker v. State
...who did not call him or with whom he is identified. U. S. v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631 (2 Cir., 1946). Cf. Saliba v. Saliba, 178 Ark. 250, 11 S.W.2d 774. Any other rule would require a party to call all eyewitnesses to avoid the impact of the presumption. De Gregorio v. U. S., 7......
-
Harper v. DeFreitas, 43318
...be reduced from the normal standard of ordinary care. See Holtsinger v. Scarbrough, 69 Ga.App. 117(3), 24 S.E.2d 869; Saliba v. Saliba, 178 Ark. 250, 11 S.W.2d 774, 775; Kavigian v. Lonero, 312 Mass. 603, 45 N.E.2d 823, 825; Ann. 3 A.L.R.3d 780, 793. Compare, Jordan v. Batayias, 53 Ga.App. ......