St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Leamons
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; Chas. W. Smith, Judge; 1. Appellant’s first request for instruction should have been granted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; Chas. W. Smith, Judge; 1. Appellant’s first request for instruction should have been granted. While it is true that a carrier of passengers is held to a very high degree of care, the .obligation to act with prudence rests also -upon the passenger; and while he may rely upon the judgment of persons in charge of «the train, he can not do so where as in this case the one relied on is not in charge of the train, and where it is plainly .open to his observation that such reliance will 'expose him to danger that a prudent man will not incur. 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.…
1Opinion of the CourtHile-, C. J.
i. This was an action for personal injury received in getting off a moving train, where the evidence tended to show that the passenger got off under the directions of the train porter, and in reliance on his superior knowledge of the safety of the act. The question of negligence and contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury. It has frequently been held by this court that in cases like this the question is one to be determined by the jury under proper instructions. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519; Little Rock & Ft. Smith Ry. Co. v. Atkins, 46 Ark. 423; St.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. v. CantrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. RushSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908