Temple v. Walker
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Geo: R. Haynie, Judge; 1. The court erred in giving the second instruction. It is abstract and assumes that the ordinance was violated and that appellant must go to the center of the street under all circumstances and at all hazards. A violation of the ordinance would not per se constitute negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Geo: R. Haynie, Judge; 1. The court erred in giving the second instruction. It is abstract and assumes that the ordinance was violated and that appellant must go to the center of the street under all circumstances and at all hazards. A violation of the ordinance would not per se constitute negligence. The question of negligence was for ■ the jury. 90 Neb. 200; 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 337; 66 N. W. 671; 1Ó9 Mich. 37; 63 L. R. A. 668, 670; 100 N. Y. Supp. 208; 103 Id. 578. Negligence is the gist of the action. Without it there can be no recovery. This instruction…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellee recovered judgment against appellant to compensate an injury sustained by her as the result of a collision between a buggy in which she was riding, with an automobile driven by appellant.
No error prejudicial to appellant appears to have been committed except in the giving of an instruction numbered 2, which reads as follows:
“If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff was traveling south on the right side of Hazel Street, and that the defendant was traveling north on the right side of said Hazel Street, and that the defendant without going to the center of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Traction Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Pankey v. Little Rock Railway & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mays v. Ritchie Grocer CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Jarrett v. MatheneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963