Wells v. Shepard

• Decision Date: 30 September 1918
• Docket Number: 134
• Parties: WELLS v. SHEPARD
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

205 S.W. 806

135 Ark. 466

WELLS v. SHEPARD

No. 134

Supreme Court of Arkansas

September 30, 1918

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Will Shepard sued Charles E. Wells to recover damages for injuries inflicted by an automobile which he alleges was at the time driven by a chauffeur of the defendant in a negligent manner. The facts as proved by the plaintiff are substantially as follows:

On the morning he received the injury, plaintiff was walking north on Spring Street on the sidewalk on the east side thereof. Between Seventh and Eighth Streets he saw a watermelon wagon standing about two and a half or three feet from the curb on the west side of the street, with the team headed south. He walked across the street and was standing behind the wagon looking at the watermelons when he was struck by the car. The automobile was on the east side of the street going north and was being driven by a one-armed man. There was a one-horse buggy being driven south on Spring Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets which was also on the east side of the street. The driver of the automobile turned to the left to avoid colliding with a buggy and, also, two pedestrians who were crossing the street. He missed the horse and buggy and the two negroes crossing the street, but his car struck the back end of the watermelon wagon with great force and knocked it up against the curb. At the same time the plaintiff was also knocked over on the sidewalk and severely bruised. When found, he was lying in the street where he had been knocked down by the force of the car striking the watermelon wagon. The plaintiff was oblivious of the approach of the car.

According to the testimony of the chauffeur, he turned to the left to avoid the horse and buggy and the two men who were crossing the street. The plaintiff stepped out from behind the wagon without looking towards the street, and the fender of the automobile struck him. The car was running slowly at the time, and the chauffeur stopped it as quick as he could after striking the plaintiff. He stated that he cut the car to keep it from running over the plaintiff and did not hit the watermelon wagon at all. The chauffeur blew his horn when he got to Eighth Street and kept blowing it until after he struck the plaintiff. He turned to the left or west side of the street to keep from running over the horse and buggy and pedestrians that were on the right hand side or the east side of the street.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $ 500, and the defendant has appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Thomas S. Buzbee, George B. Pugh and H. T. Harrison, for appellant.

1. This was purely an accident and appellant was not liable. The evidence does not justify the verdict.

2. The verdict is excessive. 89 Ark. 9; 101 Id. 90; 117 Id. 47.

Fred A Isgrig and Fred A. Snodgress, for appellee.

1. The testimony sustains the verdict. Negligence was proved.

2. The verdict is not excessive but extremely reasonable. 13 Cyc 123; 112 S.W. 177; 86 Ark. 587; 13 Cyc. 121, 122, 123; 35 Ark. 492; 89 Ark. 58; 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458; 60 Ark. 481; 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779; 114 S.W. 230; 88 Ark. 12; 90 Id. 64, 108; 74 Ark. 610; 86 S.W. 804.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts).

It is first insisted by counsel for the defendant that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the verdict.

The jury might well have found that the plaintiff himself was not negligent. The evidence shows that he was standing on the west side of the street between a watermelon wagon and the curb looking at the watermelons with the view of purchasing one; that the wagon was about two and a half or three feet from the curb. He was lawfully there, and had no reason to suppose that he would be run down by the negligence of the driver of an automobile running north on the opposite side of the street.

The negligence of the defendant was also a question for the jury. The automobile was going north, and it was the duty...