Karr v. Bowen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Osceola District; J. N. Thomason, Special Judge; 1. No negligence is shown, hence no liability. The liability of appellant for damages under the court’s instructions can only lie after the jury has found that the house was destroyed by a spark from the smoke stack of the boat and that the emission of said spark from the boat was due to negligence on the part of appellant. The evi-dence does not justify the verdict.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Osceola District; J. N. Thomason, Special Judge; 1. No negligence is shown, hence no liability. The liability of appellant for damages under the court’s instructions can only lie after the jury has found that the house was destroyed by a spark from the smoke stack of the boat and that the emission of said spark from the boat was due to negligence on the part of appellant. The evi-dence does not justify the verdict. There is evidence that the sparks from the engine caused the fire; that due diligence was not used. The jury were properly instructed. There…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This appeal questions only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict returned in appellees ’ favor to compensate the damages sustained as the result of the burning of a tenant house alleged to have been set on fire by the emission of sparks from a dredge-boat operated by appellant’s employees. It is conceded that the instructions correctly declared the law, and they were as favorable to appellant as he could have asked. It is only contended that the jury disregarded these instructions in their application to the facts of the case. In testing the sufficiency of the evidence to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. RossSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3Cited by1 opinion
- Plunkett-Jarrell Grocer Co. v. HuieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928