Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Poinsett Lumber & Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 17, 1933No. 4-2911PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). It is apparent from the allegations of the complaint that the only cause of action alleged or relied upon by appellants was based upon the doctrine of “discovered peril,” or that appellees, after discovering the perilous position of appellant, “carelessly, negligently, wilfully and wantonly drove said car against her, ’ ’ thereby inflicting the injuries complained of.

The court, without objections by appellants, submitted to the jury only the question of “discovered peril” by giving to the jury instructions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. The fact is appellants…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hellems v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
  2. Arkansas Lumber & Contractors' Supply Co. v. BensonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  3. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
  4. Lee Line Steamers v. CraigSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
  5. Patterson v. FowlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sylvester v. U-Drive-Em SystemSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  2. Sylvester v. U-Drive-Em SystemSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API