Legal Opinion

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Lane

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J., (after stating the facts).

It is first earnestly insisted by counsel for the defendant that the evidence is not legally sufficient to warrant the verdict.

We do not agree with counsel in this contention. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, while it was not customary to give signals before moving the car, still he did not have any chance to get his foot away after they pushed the car up the dump to the end of the ties. According to his testimony, his foot was caught under the wheels of the car by the other members of the car pushing it, without giving him any warning that they…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co. v. SharpSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  2. Arkansas Central Railroad v. WorkmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  3. Ohio Handle & Manufacturing Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. BennettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  2. Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. DiggsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
  3. Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
  4. Stewart v. Key Co.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API