Little Rock Railway & Electric Co. v. Bracy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division ; Guy FulJc, Judge; 1. The first instruction was abstract and misleading.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division ; Guy FulJc, Judge; 1. The first instruction was abstract and misleading. The issue in the case was not an unproved, undisputed mistreatment of an unoffending passenger, but whether or not the motorman wrongfully ejected him; whether the plaintiff provoked or invited the ejection and whether the motorman used more force than was necessary in ejecting him. 14 Ark. 530; 69 Ark. 130; 37 Ark. 591; 77 Ark. 569; 85 Ark. 394; 80 Ark. 165. There is nothing in the instructions given at appellee’s request to cure the error in giving the above…
1Opinion
ON REHEARING.
McCulloch, C. J.
Learned counsel for plaintiff insist that we are wrong in condemning instruction No. 5 as reversible error, and they cite authorities holding that violation by the passenger of a carrier’s rules justifies ejection. A fair illustration of the authorities cited is the case of Gregory v. Railroad Co., 100 Ia. 345, 69 N. W. 532, where it was held that if a "passenger refuses to remove his dog from a passenger car in compliance with the regulations of-a railroad company the conductor is authorized to remove both.”
If that doctrine be applied literally to the facts of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gregory v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1896