{ "id": 1553182, "name": "St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Murphy", "name_abbreviation": "St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Murphy", "decision_date": "1916-10-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "507", "last_page": "510", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "125 Ark. 507" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "108 Ark. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "123 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1556152 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/123/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 Ark. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1532216 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/116/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ark. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1337075 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/110/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Ark. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1538801 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/112/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ark. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1537576 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/113/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 Ark. 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1562556 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/118/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ark. 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1497274 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/78/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ark. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1564923 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463, 464" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/117/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Ark. 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 362, "char_count": 6701, "ocr_confidence": 0.484, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.288973427452444e-08, "percentile": 0.4336548192578023 }, "sha256": "e1f573fe9cccea56f97789a394e0682867f00dae5c90ae1400b391c104a98521", "simhash": "1:4c044767971ddfd0", "word_count": 1152 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:14.978358+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Murphy." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellee recovered judgment for damages to compensate an injury sustained by him as & result of a collision between one. of appellant\u2019s switch engines and his wagon in which he was driving at the time. The collision occurred at a crossing near the city of Argenta and as a result of it, in addition to his own injury, one of appellee\u2019s mules was killed and the other was injured and his wagon demolished. There was a judgment at the trial below in appellee\u2019s favor for $1,150.00, and appellant now says that, not only should no recovery whatever have been permitted, but that the recovery was for an excessive amount.\nAppellant chiefly complains of the action of the court in refusing to charge the jury upon the subject of appellee\u2019s contributory negligence, and sets out in its brief a correct declaration of the law on this subject as it has been announced in many opinions of this court.\nThere is nothing in Act No. 284 of the Acts of 1911, page 275, commonly known as the \u201cLookout Statute,\u201d which changes the duty of either a traveler or a trespasser to exercise care for his own safety when crossing or when upon the railroad tracks, as that duty has been frequently declared by this court. And contributory negligence on the part of the traveler or the trespasser is still a valid and sufficient defense to a suit for damages for an injury unless \u2014 notwithstanding this contributory negligence \u2014 the-operatives of the train discover or, in the exercise of ordinary care should discover, the presence and peril of the person injured in time to avoid injuring him by the exercise of reasonable care after the discovery of such peril.\nThe operatives of the train testified that appellee drove his wagon upon the track at the crossing so near the engine that the engineer and fireman in charge thereof did not see and could not have seen the wagon in time to avoid striking it and at appellant\u2019s request the court gave an instruction numbered 4 which reads as follows:\n\u201cIf you believe from the evidence that the wagon and team in which plaintiff was riding came so suddenly upon defendant\u2019s track at the crossing and so near the switch engine that the engineer and fireman in charge of said engine did not see and could not have seen the perilous position of such wagon and team by the exercise of ordinary care to have stopped the train in time by the exercise of ordinary care to have- prevented the engine from striking such wagon and team and causing plaintiff\u2019s injury, then your verdict should be for the defendant.\u201d\nAppellant is, therefore, in no position to complain of the action of the court in refusing to charge qpon the question of appellee\u2019s contributory negligence. Under the instructions set out above that question passed out of the case. The instruction told the jury to find for the railroad company unless the engineer and fireman saw or could have seen the perilous position of the wagon in time to have stopped the train and to have prevented the collision and if the peril was so discovered then it was no defense that appellee was guilty of negligence contributing to his injury.\nOther instructions in the case, including those given at appellee\u2019s request, predicate the right of recovery upon the fact that appellee\u2019s presence and peril were discovered or, in the exercise of ordinary care, could have been discovered in time to have avoided his injury by the exercise of reasonable care thereafter, and no error was committed, therefore, in refusing to declare the law upon an immaterial question.\nWe are unable to say that the damages awarded are so excessive that we must reduce the judgment. Appellee testified that his mule which was killed was worth $225.00, and that his wagon cost him $70.00, and that he incurred a doctor\u2019s bill of $75.00, and sustained injury to his side and back which caused him much pain and confined him to his bed for ten days and rendered him unable to do any work for a month, and had caused an impairment of his capacity to labor from which he was still suffering to some extent.\nThe judgment of the court below is-, therefore, affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Edw. A. Haid, F. G. Bridges and W. T. Wooldridge, for appellant.", "Geo. F. Jones and'E. L. Floyd, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Murphy.\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1916.\n1. Railroads \u2014 injury to person crossing tracks \u2014 \u201clookout statute\u201d \u2014 contributory negligence. \u2014 The duty of either a traveler or trespasser to exercise care for his own safety when crossing railway tracks is not changed by Act 284 of Acts of 1911, known as the \u201cLookout Statute.\u201d\n2. Railroads \u2014 injury to person crossing tracks \u2014 defense of CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE \u2014 EFFECT OF LOOKOUT STATUTE. \u2014 Contributory negligence on the part of a traveler or trespasser, is a valid and sufficient defense to a suit for damages for injuries sustilned at a railway crossing, unless, notwithstanding the contributory negligence, the operatives of the train discover or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should discover the presence and peril of the person injured in time to avoid injuring him by the exercise of reasonable care.\n8. Damages \u2014 personal injuries \u2014 damage to property \u2014 amount.\u2014 Appellee was struck by one of defendant\u2019s engines while driving across defendant\u2019s tracks. Held, where one mule, valued at $225.00, was killed, the wagon valued at $70.00, was demolished, appellee incurred a doctor\u2019s bill of $75.00, and sustained injuries causing much \u2022 pain, confining him to his bed, rendering him unable to work for a month, afid caused an impairment of his capacity to labor, a verdict for $1,150.00 is not excessive.\nAppeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Third' Division. G. W. Hendricks, Judge;\naffirmed.\nEdw. A. Haid, F. G. Bridges and W. T. Wooldridge, for appellant.\n1. The court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the duty of a traveler at a public railroad crossing or the question of his negligence in that regard. The amendatory act to the lookout statute, Acts 1911, p. 275, does not relieve a traveler from the duty to stop, look and listen for the approach of a train at a railroad crossing. 112 Ark. 542, 460; 117 Ark. 457, 463, 464; 78 Ark. 355; 118 Ark. 36,, 41.\n2. The judgment is clearly excessive.\nGeo. F. Jones and'E. L. Floyd, for appellee.\nThe court\u2019s instructions follow the law as recognized by this Court in practically every c\u00e1se tried here on appeal since the amendment to the lookout statute. If there was any negligence on the part of appellee, which is not conceded, this would not relieve appellant of liability, if they failed to keep a lookout as provided under the law, and, had such lookout been kept, they \u25a0could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided injuring appellee. 113 Ark. 353; 112 Ark. 401; 110 Ark. 444; 116 Ark. 514; 123 Ark. 94; 108 Ark. 327, 334." }, "file_name": "0507-01", "first_page_order": 533, "last_page_order": 536 }