Harris v. Hicks
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; G. W. Smith, Judge; 1. The first instruction for 'plaintiff was error. Instruction No. 2 was also error. 208 S. W. 289; 130 Ark. 406. 2. The court also erred in refusing to modify instruction No. 3, for plaintiff. Supra. 3. The court erred in giving No. 5 for the plaintiff, which practically takes the case from the jury. Supra. 1. There is no error in the instructions complained of. The law is well settled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; G. W. Smith, Judge; 1. The first instruction for 'plaintiff was error. Instruction No. 2 was also error. 208 S. W. 289; 130 Ark. 406. 2. The court also erred in refusing to modify instruction No. 3, for plaintiff. Supra. 3. The court erred in giving No. 5 for the plaintiff, which practically takes the case from the jury. Supra. 1. There is no error in the instructions complained of. The law is well settled. Acts 1911, p. 101, § Í0; Kirby & Castle’s Digest, § 6435; Huddy on Automobiles, § 89; 77 S. W. 196; 161 Id. 597; 177 111. App. 530; 80 S. E. 36; 113…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for the value of a horse owned by him which died as the result of having been struck by appellant’s automobile, and this appeal is from that judgment.
- The evidence tending to support the verdict is to the effect that appellant was driving his car along a country road at a speed of about 35 miles per hour, when he met appellee riding a horse, and, notwithstanding the fact that the horse became frightened as the car approached, appellant did not stop his car until it struck the horse. According to the testimony offered in appellant’s behalf,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fleming v. OatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- Green v. PoolCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
- Mortenson Ex Rel. Mortenson v. HindahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Elsass v. Southwestern Transportation CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932