Lisko v. Uhren
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Thos. C. Trimble, Judge; 1. Substantial damages were proven and it was error to instruct the jury that plaintiff was entitled only to nominal damages. 1 Sutherland on Damages (4 ed.) § 88, etc. 2. The evidence shows substantial damages and the verdict is clearly against the evidence. 1. The verdict is sustained by the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Thos. C. Trimble, Judge; 1. Substantial damages were proven and it was error to instruct the jury that plaintiff was entitled only to nominal damages. 1 Sutherland on Damages (4 ed.) § 88, etc. 2. The evidence shows substantial damages and the verdict is clearly against the evidence. 1. The verdict is sustained by the evidence. Plaintiff did not use due diligence or care. 196 S. W. 816. 2. The evidence was conflicting, and there was no error in the instructions. The verdict should not be disturbed.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
John Lisko sued Steve Uhren to recover damages for flooding his hay field. On the part of the plaintiff, it was shown that he was the owner of a tract of prairie land in Prairie County, Arkansas. He used it as a hay farm. The defendant owned a tract of land-next to him which he planted in rice. About the 17th of June, 1917, the plaintiff began to cut his hay and notified the defendant to that effect. The defendant began pumping water into his rice field, and it overflowed and ran over onto the plaintiff’s land and destroyed about two tons of hay which he had cut, and damaged badly several…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railroad v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Fort Smith Suburban Railway Co. v. MaledonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- Curtner v. Bank of JonesboroSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Enterprise Sales Co. v. BarhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980