Taylor v. Grant Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 25 April 1910 |
Parties | TAYLOR v. GRANT LUMBER COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge affirmed.
Judgment rendered and action dismissed.
Austin & Danaher, for appellant.
The Fellow Servant Act applies to logging roads. 69 L.R.A. 887; 61 Id. 249. Deceased being in defendant's employ at the request of its servant foreman, he was not a trespasser, and was entitled to the same protection as other employees. 1 Hurl. & N. 773; L. R. 2 Ex. 30; 11 Ex. 832; 6 Jur. (U.S.) 53; 69 Pa. 210; 48 Miss. 112; 43 O. St. 224; 58 Ark. 318. The foreman had authority to make such requests. 17 Colo. 564; 31 Am. St. 340; 12 Am. St. 422; 119 Ind. 455; 24 Am. St. 322; 19 Id. 180; 34 Id. 283; 36 Am R. 382; 58 Ark. 175. A servant does not assume the risk of the negligence of fellow servants. 122 F. 193; 196 U.S. 51; 178 Mass. 251; 101 Am. St. 660.
Taylor & Jones and Daniel Taylor, for appellee.
The court's discretion in granting a new trial will not be disturbed, unless manifestly abused. 34 Ark. 632; 93 S.W. 18; 46 S.W. 202; 79 S.W. 803; 86 S.W. 379; 93 S.W. 871; 81 S.W 907; 105 S.W. 1061; 105 S.W. 1098; 83 S.W. 297; 74 S.W. 976; 71 S.W. 425; 72 S.W. 20; 76 S.W. 502; 85 S.W. 357; 78 S.W. 312; 41 S.W. 215; 91 S.W. 1031; 108 N.W. 824; 108 N.W. 839; 99 S.W. 722; 47 Mo. 50.
Rosetta Taylor, as administratrix of James M. Taylor, deceased, brought an action against Grant Lumber Company, and recovered a judgment against it. The defendant moved for a new trial, which the court granted. From this order granting a new trial the plaintiff has appealed, she stipulating that judgment absolute may be rendered in this court.
In Catlett v. Railway Co., 57 Ark. 461, 466, Chief Justice COCKRILL, delivering the opinion of the court, said:
The trial judge still has control of the verdict of the jury after and during the term it is rendered. Because of his training and experience in the weighing of testimony, and of the application of legal rules to the same, and of his equal opportunities with the jury to weigh the evidence and judge of the credibility of witnesses, he is vested with the power to set aside their verdicts on account of errors committed by them, whereby they have failed, in their verdict, to do justice and enforce the right of the case, under the testimony and the instructions of the court. This is a necessary counterbalance to protect litigants against the failure of the administration of the law and justice on account of the inexperience of jurors.
In Catlett v. Railway Co., supra, Chief Justice COCKRILL further said:
In that case the court further held:
As said by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Baughman v. Fulton, 139 Mo. 557, 41 S.W. 215: "Trial courts have large discretion in the matter of granting new trials, especially upon the weight of the evidence; and this court will not interfere with such discretion unless it be made to appear that it was improvidently exercised." See cases cited.
In the case before us the preponderance of the evidence adduced in the trial in it tended to prove the following facts: The defendant, Grant Lumber Company, was a corporation organized under the laws of Arkansas, and engaged in a lumber and railroad business. On the third day of October, 1907, James M. Taylor, the intestate of plaintiff, was employed by it to serve in the capacity of mill foreman. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Kitchen
...of a carrier of passengers on a carrier by riding on a tie train. 4 Elliott, Railroads, §§ 1581-2; Hutch. on Car. (3 ed.) 1000-1; 94 Ark. 566; 111 N.W. 379; 58 S.W. 548; 153 188; 29 N.H. 9; 149 Mass. 204; 157 Ind. 20; 63 So. Car. 46; 64 S.E. 112; 165 F. 408. Deceased rode on top of a freigh......
-
Mifflinburg Bank v. Kuhn
...of abuse of discretion in a trial court in granting a motion for new trial, this court will correct the error. 20 Enc. Proc., pp. 643-645; 94 Ark. 566; 54 Ark. 98 Ark. 304. Any errors which might be ground for a new trial must be set out in the motion for new trial. 20 Enc. Proc., p. 423; 7......
-
McDonnell v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
... ... but will leave the trial court to determine the question of ... preponderance. Taylor" v. Grant Lumber Co., ... 94 Ark. 566, 127 S.W. 962; Blackwood v ... Eads, ante p. 304 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Twist v. Mullinix
... ... again in Blackwood v. Eads , 98 Ark. 304, ... 135 S.W. 922, where we quoted from Taylor v ... Grant Lumber Co. , 94 Ark. 566, 127 S.W. 962, as ... follows: "The trial judge still has ... ...