St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Green

Decision Date13 January 1908
Citation107 S.W. 168,85 Ark. 117
PartiesST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GREEN
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Jacob M. Carter, Judge; reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The plaintiff, Mattie E. Green, filed her complaint in the Clark Circuit Court, alleging:

That the defendant, St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, is a railroad corporation, operating a railroad, which passes through Witherspoon, in Hot Spring County, Arkansas; that plaintiff on the 11th day of August 1906, undertook to board its south-bound passenger train for Arkadelphia, before it had pulled up to the station, by direction of an employee of the defendant, and that said employee was careless arid negligent in assisting her to get upon said train, causing her to fall, wrenching her back, etc., causing her to be unable to use her left arm and to perform her household duties, and causing great pain and suffering; and prayed for damages in the sum of three thousand dollars, and for other relief.

The defendant denied each and every material allegation of the plaintiff's complaint, and set up that, if the plaintiff was injured at all, it was by reason of her own contributory negligence, and prayed to be discharged, having answered.

This cause came on for hearing before a jury duly impanelled, on the 11th of February, 1907, at the January term of the Clark Circuit Court, and the following testimony was introduced:

Mrs. Mattie E. Green, the plaintiff, being first duly sworn and examined, testified in substance as follows, to-wit:

That she is the plaintiff; lives at Witherspoon, a station on the defendant company's line of railroad; is a married woman; Witherspoon is about five miles from Arkadelphia; that she was at the station for the purpose of getting on the train on August 11, 1906, to take passage to Arkadelphia, Arkansas, and was injured there; that there was a platform at the station, and when she started to board the train she did so under direction from a man in the uniform of a railroad man; the platform is pretty long that there were two fellows getting on the darkey coach and she thought she would get on there and walk through the platform is on the right hand side or she thinks her left hand side; east side she thinks in coming to Arkadelphia. That they did not pull her coach up to the platform, when it reached there; the first passenger coach was the darkey coach, and that reached the platform; the white coach did not reach the platform, although it was just behind the black coach; that she was standing in the middle of the platform, when the train reached the station that she was told to get on down at the white coach and get on in a hurry, when she started to get on the darkey's coach; that she offered the man her baby, and started to get on, and he gave her a push, and she started to make a step and fell, and swung there on one arm. That she started to get on the south end of the passenger coach; that her baby was in her right arm, and when she was shoved she caught on to the handhold with her left arm; that Mrs. Allen, who was with her, tried to assist her; that she was trying to get up the steps at the time; that he gave her a shove and turned her loose; that the weight of the baby on her arm caused her to fall back when he turned loose of her; that she commenced falling backwards, and swung around on the handhold, facing north, the way the train had come; that she was hurt by falling backwards; it hurt her arm and back; that she has had medical assistance, and has suffered nearly all the time with it; that her back was hurt.

Other testimony was adduced by her tending to corroborate her statements, and to show the extent of the injuries received by her.

Mr Hawkins, a witness for the defendant, testified as follows: That he is a brakeman on the Iron Mountain, on trains Nos. 805 and 806, what is known as the short train; knows Witherspoon station; they pass there in the morning going south; that they carry a step box to assist passengers to get on and off that train with, and are never without it; does not remember any occasion when this plaintiff claims to have been hurt by swinging around on the steps; that he does not remember having helped some ladies on about the 11th; that there was nothing about that time that would indicate that there was any trouble or any injury to a lady; that if there had been he would have remembered it; that there was nothing that attracted his attention; that if a lady had got hurt he would have taken note of it; that, when they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Wiuvar
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1923
    ...Terry, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 341, 65 S. W. 697; Ry. v. Dyer, 152 Ky. 264, 153 S. W. 194, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 816; Ry. v. Green, 85 Ark. 117, 107 S. W. 168, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1148; Ry. v. McCullough, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 534, 45 S. W. 324; Ry v. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 15 S. W. 264, 11 L. R. A. 395, ......
  • Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad Company v. Daniels
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1911
    ...given, and because it implies a degree of care in assisting passengers from trains which the law does not require. It is abstract. 85 Ark. 117. W. Pace and Troy Pace, for appellee. 1. Appellee's testimony was not a waiver of her right to object to the testimony of phyiscians who had treated......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Fambro
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1908
    ...from the evidence that the injuries were caused by a moving train this was prima facie proof of negligence of the company. 70 Ark. 481; 85 Ark. 117; 73 Ark. 2. Instruction No. 8 requested by appellant should have been given. If the negligence of appellees contributed to their injuries, they......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Stell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1908
    ...negligence. There can be no presumption indulged where all the facts are known; besides, this case does not fall within the rule. 85 Ark. 117; Black's Law Dict. 932; 33 635; 70 P. 223. See also 73 Ark. 551. 4. If appellee's own negligence contributed to the injury, he cannot recover, notwit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT