{
  "id": 1432023,
  "name": "Field v. Gazette Publishing Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Field v. Gazette Publishing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1933-03-27",
  "docket_number": "4-2834",
  "first_page": "253",
  "last_page": "257",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ark. 253"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "165 N. E. 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Mass. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        846880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/266/0578-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3555,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.29938924247193e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9582062506346896
    },
    "sha256": "ea1639d309ea2708ff4a45b1b199b04b7e71e6cdce99ef7d47a566d44bc42ade",
    "simhash": "1:2bc187321e4487f8",
    "word_count": 597
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:01.606684+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Butler, J., disqualified and not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Field v. Gazette Publishing Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Johnson, C. J.,\n(after stating the facts). From the above statement of facts it will be seen that the trial court made application of the three-year statute of limitations in bar of appellant\u2019s alleged right of recovery. (Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 7148).\nIt is conceded on behalf of appellant that, if the trial court was correct in instructing the jury that, \u201cif you find that the plaintiff contracted the malady of which, he complains previous to June 10, 1926, then you will find for the defendant,\u201d this case should be affirmed.\nIt is the contention of appellant that the three-year statute of limitations was tolled or held in abeyance until appellant, or his physicians, determined the specific malady from which he was suffering and that this information was not obtained until sometime in 1928.\nVolume 17 It. C. L., entitled, \u201cLimitation of Actions,\u201d 30, page 765, in part, reads as follows:\n\u201cNegligence Actions. In applying these general principles in negligence actions it has been held that the statute as to actions for personal injuries begins to run at the time the injuries are sustained although their results may not be then fully developed.\u201d\nIn Wood on Limitation of Causes, vol. 2, page 844, the author announces the rule as follows:\n\u201cIn actions from injuries resulting from the negligence or unskillfulness of another, the statute attaches and begins to run from the time when the injury was first inflicted, and not from the time when the full extent of the damages sustained has been ascertained. The gist of the action is the negligence or breach of duty and not the consequent injury resulting therefrom.\u201d\nAs we view the situation, the great weight of American authority is to the effect that the cause of action arises and the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the negligent act and not from the time the full extent of the injury may be ascertained. Cappusi v. Barone, 266 Mass. 578, 165 N. E. 653.\nThe court has reached the conclusion that the lower-court made correct application of the three-year statute of limitations and therefore did not commit error in giving the instructions complained of.\nAs we understand this record, appellant does not contend that the appellee fraudulently concealed any facts with reference to his injuries, and he does not contend that the appellee had knowledge of facts or information other than those well known to appellant.\nThe trial court submitted to the jury the question as to whether or not appellant suffered any injury after June 10, 1926, by-or through the negligent act of the appellee, and the jury, by its verdict, has found against him on this issue. The verdict of the jury necessarily found that appellant\u2019s injury was inflicted prior to June 10,1926.\nIt is the conclusion of this court that the trial court was correct in declaring that appellant could not recover for any injury suffered prior to June 10, 1926, and that the jury has found from the testimony that he suffered no injury at the hands of the appellee after June 10,1926.\nTherefore the judgment should be affirmed.\nButler, J., disqualified and not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Johnson, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Horace Chamberlin, for appellant.",
      "Cockrill & Armistead and Owens & Ehrman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "ERRATA 187 ARKANSAS REPORTS at page 256 Detach at perforation, moisten the back, and paste over the third full paragraph on page 256 of Field v. Gazette Pub. Co.: Volume 17 R. C. L., entitled, \u201cLimitation of Actions, \u201d \u00a7 130, page 765, in part, reads as follows:",
    "head_matter": "Field v. Gazette Publishing Company.\n4-2834\nOpinion delivered March 27, 1933.\nHorace Chamberlin, for appellant.\nCockrill & Armistead and Owens & Ehrman, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0253-01",
  "first_page_order": 271,
  "last_page_order": 277
}