Trotter v. Bowden
| Decision Date | 19 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CA 02-663.,CA 02-663. |
| Parties | Dana TROTTER, et al., v. Robin BOWDEN. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Gary Eubanks & Associates, by: Russell D. Marlin, for appellant.
Laser Law Firm, P.A., by: Alfred F. Angulo, Jr. and Brian A. Brown, for appellee.
The appellee in this tort case was driving an automobile that collided with two eight-year-old boys riding a bicycle. The boys were injured, and they and their parents sued appellee for negligence. At the close of trial, appellee moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. This appeal followed.
For reversal, appellants contend that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellee. We agree, and we reverse and remand.
In reviewing an order granting a motion for directed verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed. Allstate Insurance Company v. Voyles, 76 Ark.App. 334, 65 S.W.3d 457 (2002). If any substantial evidence exists that tends to establish an issue in favor of that party, then a jury question is presented and the directed verdict should be reversed. Id.
Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the appellants, the record shows that appellee was driving her car on a residential street, on a school day, at approximately 4:00 p.m. Appellee knew that this was a residential neighborhood and that it was important to be cautious there because people frequently walk in the street. She testified that she saw two little boys riding a bicycle on the right side of the road. They were approximately two feet from the curb. Appellee was driving between fifteen and twenty miles per hour when she first saw the boys. There were no vehicles or anything else in the street that obstructed her view. Appellee applied her brakes but did not take evasive action. Approximately five seconds after first seeing the boys, she struck them with her vehicle. The boys were injured and taken away in an ambulance.
We think that the testimony recounted above constitutes substantial evidence of negligence. A driver is bound to be constantly vigilant for persons along a highway and exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring them. Thomas v. Newman, 262 Ark. 42, 553 S.W.2d 459 (1977). A motorist cannot rely upon the assumption that a child pedestrian will act with the same degree of care, caution, and circumspection or will remain in a place of safety or obey the rules of the road to the same extent he could if an adult were involved. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose Care, Inc. v. Ross
...an issue in favor of that party, then a jury question is presented, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Trotter v. Bowden, 81 Ark.App. 259, 101 S.W.3d 264 (2003). The critical inquiry with respect to punitive damages is to determine whether there is evidence that a party likely kne......
-
Cinnamon Valley Resort v. EMAC ENTERPRISES
...verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed. Trotter v. Bowden, 81 Ark.App. 259, 101 S.W.3d 264 (2003). If any substantial evidence exists that tends to establish an issue in favor of that party, then a jury question is presen......
-
Dunn v. Aamodt
...the case without reaching the merits of whether operating a day-care from a home was a commercial (or business) use of the land. 101 S.W.3d at 264. On remand, the trial court found that operating the day-care violated the bill of assurance and enjoined the homeowner from further operation. ......
-
Gilbow v. Crawford
...verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed. Trotter v. Bowden, 81 Ark. App. 259, 260, 101 S.W.3d 264, 265 (2003). If any substantial evidence exists that tends to establish an issue in favor of that party, then a jury questio......