St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Coalson
| Decision Date | 22 June 1908 |
| Citation | 112 S.W. 739 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. COALSON. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Daniel Hon, Judge.
Action by Mollie Coalson against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Lovick P. Miles and T. B. Pryor, for appellant. Rowe & Rowe, for appellee.
On the 28th of November, 1906, Samuel Coalson was lying upon a railroad track near the city of Ft. Smith, with his head resting upon one of the rails, when a train known as the "Greenwood train," on its way to Ft. Smith, ran upon him and struck him. He was in such a position that his head would have been run over by the engine, but the brakeman, who was at that time riding on the pilot, managed to push his head from the rail in time to save it; but his action did not save his body from being seriously injured, from which injuries he died shortly thereafter. This is an action brought by his widow, for herself and as next friend of her minor children, to recover of the railroad company damages for his death. She recovered in the circuit court, and the railroad company appealed.
The only question in the case is whether the train operatives were negligent in failing to prevent the injury to Coalson after his perilous position was discovered by them. The law upon this subject has been recently discussed and applied in the following cases: St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 69 Ark. 380, 63 S. W. 994; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Evans, 74 Ark. 407, 86 S. W. 426; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hill, 74 Ark. 478, 86 S. W. 303; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bunch, 82 Ark. 522, 102 S. W. 369; Adams v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 83 Ark. 301, 103 S. W. 725; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Raines (Ark.) 111 S. W. 262. The instructions were in conformity to the principle announced in these cases, and there is no error found in any of them. There is nothing in them that calls for discussion, as they are but applications of the settled principles governing in such cases. There was testimony, if believed by the jury, which would fully warrant them in finding that the train operatives, not only could have seen, but that they actually did see, the perilous condition of Coalson in time to have prevented injuring him, but that the only effort made to avoid injury was the continued sounding of the whistle, and at last the efforts of the brakeman on the pilot to push him...
To continue reading
Request your trial