Shrigley v. Pierson

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SMITH, J.
• Citation: Shrigley v. Pierson, 72 S.W.2d 541, 189 Ark. 386 (Ark. 1934)
• Decision Date: 11 June 1934
• Docket Number: 4-3488
• Parties: SHRIGLEY v. PIERSON

72 S.W.2d 541

189 Ark. 386

SHRIGLEY v. PIERSON

4-3488

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 11, 1934

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Reynolds & Maze, for appellant.

G. O Patterson, Sr., G. O. Patterson, Jr., and R. W. Robins, for appellee.

SMITH J. JOHNSON, C. J., and MEHAFFY, J., dissent.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Mrs Pierson, the plaintiff below, alleged and offered testimony legally sufficient to establish the fact that she had been invited to ride in and to drive a car owned by a Mr. Shrigley--the defendant below--the steering gear of which was defective, and because of the defect she was unable to control the car, which ran off the road, turning over, and inflicting upon Mrs. Pierson serious and permanent injuries. Mrs. Pierson drove the car from Clarksville, of which city she and Mr. Shrigley were residents, to Fayetteville, a trip any one would be pleased to take who knew what to expect in the way of scenic beauty. The purpose of the trip was to drive Mrs. Shrigley's mother and father to Fayetteville and leave them there to visit another daughter, and Mrs. Shrigley made the fourth member of the party. Mrs. Shrigley and Mrs. Pierson were returning alone, when, according to Mrs. Pierson's testimony, the steering gear locked, and she lost control of the car, which ran off the road and turned over.

There was testimony to the effect that Mr. Shrigley had been informed by a mechanic who did some repair work on the car that the steering gear was not in good order, and he was advised by the mechanic to have it put in repair, but he neglected and failed to do so. This was denied by Shrigley, and the testimony on his behalf was to the effect that the work of the mechanic put the car in good condition, and that he was advised of no defect in the steering gear. The testimony on Shrigley's behalf was to the further effect that the steering gear was not out of order even after the car had turned over, and that the accident was caused by a nail which had punctured one of the rear tires.

The cause was submitted to the jury under instructions, to which Shrigley objected and excepted, to the effect that, if he invited Mrs. Pierson to take the trip and drive the car, he was liable for any damages suffered by her by reason of a defect in the steering gear, if he knew, or, in the exercise of due care, should have known, of the defect....