Hines v. Gunnells
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge; 1. A verdict for defendant should have been instructed for defendant on its plea of contributory negligence. 136 Ark. 249; 137 Id. 13. It is the duty of every traveler approaching a railroad crossing to look and listen for trains, and, if necessary, he must stop. 83 Ark. 62 and cases supra. It was error to give plaintiff’s instruction No. 5. 78 Ark. 55. 2. There was no negligence on the part of def endant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge; 1. A verdict for defendant should have been instructed for defendant on its plea of contributory negligence. 136 Ark. 249; 137 Id. 13. It is the duty of every traveler approaching a railroad crossing to look and listen for trains, and, if necessary, he must stop. 83 Ark. 62 and cases supra. It was error to give plaintiff’s instruction No. 5. 78 Ark. 55. 2. There was no negligence on the part of def endant. The verdict in this case does not establish negligence of the company, nor determine that plaintiffs were not guilty of contributory…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Separate suits were filed against the appellant railroad company by appellees J. F. Gunnells and P. N. Bustion. The complaints were identical, each one claiming a separate personal injury, and, in addition, Gunnells claimed damages to his automobile on account of a collision between the auto in which they were, riding and a locomotive on the line of appellant’s railroad. The jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff J. F. Gunnells and assess his damages sustained to his automobile in the sum of $134; and as to the other issues we find for the defendant.”
This…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Billingsley v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1918