{
  "id": 1459820,
  "name": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Riley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Riley",
  "decision_date": "1939-05-22",
  "docket_number": "4-5489",
  "first_page": "372",
  "last_page": "375",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ark. 372"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "128 S.W.2d 1005"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "165 S. W. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ark. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1538820
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/112/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ark. 834",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1462461
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/196/0834-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 S. W. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ark. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1568107
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/137/0006-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 426,
    "char_count": 6064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0679538260685028e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5590451412418252
    },
    "sha256": "8dd135e0edc9de88539c29b8de2031ee5a55fb600c2f22b2f439b4383f5549a2",
    "simhash": "1:e566412a18cd8146",
    "word_count": 1094
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:03.341287+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Riley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nBetween 8 and 8:30 on the' night of March 24, 1938, E. J. Eiley left home in his car, with his wife and two children, to visit his wife\u2019s mother. As he crossed the tracks of the appellant Eailroad Company in the City of Port Smith his car collided with a locomotive which was switching two cars attached to the rear of the locomotive. Appellee sustained personal injuries, as did also his wife and one of the children, the other child, a baby, escaping injury. Judgment was recovered to compensate these injuries, and also the damage to appellee\u2019s car.\nThe cause was correctly submitted to the jury under instructions usually given in such cases.\nThe testimony of the plaintiffs was to the effect that Eiley looked and listened, for a train as he' drove upon the track, but he neither saw nor heard a train. It was \u201cpitch dark,\u201d as Eiley said, and he offered his own and other testimony to the effect that the headlight of the engine was not shining, and that the whistle was not blown, nor was the bell rung, as the train approached the crossing.\nHowever improbable it may be that a train would be switched in the dark, there was affirmative testimony to that effect, and, as was said by Justice Hart in the case of St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Stewart, 137 Ark. 6, 207 S. W. 440, \u201cIt is possible, however, for a train to be run without the headlight on the engine being-lighted and whether the headlight was burning- at the time of the accident does hot contradict any law of nature or the physical facts in the case, but depends upon whether or not the plaintiff and his witnesses were telling- the truth.\u201d A ease was, therefore, made for the jury.\nThe court read \u00a7 11135, Pope\u2019s Digest, as an instruction in the case. This section requires trains to give signals as crossings are approached, and that \u201cA bell of at least thirty pounds weight, or a steam whistle, shall be placed on each locomotive or engine, and shall be rung or. whistled at the distance of at least eighty rods from the place where the said road shall cross any other road or street, and be kept ringing, or whistling, until it shall have crossed said road or street, ...\u201d\nObjection was made to this instruction upon the ground that \u201cThe movement of this train was less than eighty rods from the crossing where the accident occurred at the time the movement started, and that said movement was a switching movement. \u2019 \u2019 In other words, after being put in motion the train did not travel eighty rods before reaching the crossing.\nThe duty to ring the bell o.r blow the whistle is not relieved because the train was put in motion at a point less than eighty rods from the crossing. Of course, the crossing signals could not be given for a distance of eighty rods, but they could and should be given while the train is approaching the'crossing, whatever the distance.\nAfter objection to the instruction it was modified to read that the signal should be given \u201cin approaching a crossing and within 80 rods thereof, or within any distance under 80 rods traveled in approaching a crossing.\u201d\nThe instruction as modified was correct and was authorized by the statute. The case of Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Powell, 196 Ark. 834, 120 S. W. 2d 349, is adverse to appellant\u2019s contention in regard to the instruction as modified, and disposes of it.\nJudgments were recovered in this case as follows: For E. J. Riley, $2,000.00, which included damage to his car; for the injury to his wife, $3,000.00; for the injury \u2022to his little daughter, Jo Ann, the sum of $2,000.00, making a total judgment of $7,000.00.'\nIt is not very seriously contended that the judgment in favor of Mrs. Riley for $3,000.00 is excessive, but it is very earnestly insisted that the other judgments are.\nAs to the judgment in Mr. Riley\u2019s favor for $2,000.00, it may be said that his car was wrecked, and that he paid for himself and for his wife and daughter $100.00 for medicines and medical attention. He received an injury to his eye which caused him much pain. He testified that \u201cI had gotten a lick in my stomach, and was down in my hack for several days after the wreck, and didn\u2019t work for a week or two and my back is still that wav up until now, but it is all right as long as I don\u2019t strain myself, I can make-it all right if I take it easy.\u201d He stated his occupation to be that of machine operator, which occupation he was able to pursue, and was now pursuing, except that, when it was necessary to lift some heavy object, or to crank a machine, as it frequently was, he was required to have assistance, which would not have been necessary but for his injury. The doctor who attended Mr. Riley testified that his injuries had been very painful, as appellee was both swollen and tender, and one Garrett, who works with appellee, testified that even then, some months after the injury, witness was required to do the heavy work which their employment required.\nUnder these circumstances we are unable to say that the verdict in Mr. Riley\u2019s favor is excessive.\nThe child received several cuts and bruises, which, while painful, are not permanent, except a scar over her eye, which the doctor said might finally disappear, and a scar on the lower part of her' hip and side about five or six inches long, which the doctor said would not disappear. This scar is a disfigurement which may be more embarrassing when Jo Ann becomes a woman than it is now while she is a child. Permanent disfigurement has always been regarded as a recoverable element, in measuring, damages, and we are unable to say that the verdict on this account is excessive. Ferguson, etc., Co. v. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 S. W. 628.\nUpon the whole case we are unable to say that any of the judgments are excessive, and, as there was no error in the trial at which they were recovered, they must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Pryor, David B. Boatright and W: L. Curtis, for appellant.. ..",
      "Partain & Agee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Riley.\n4-5489\n128 S. W. 2d 1005\nOpinion delivered May 22, 1939.\nThomas B. Pryor, David B. Boatright and W: L. Curtis, for appellant.. ..\nPartain & Agee, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0372-01",
  "first_page_order": 388,
  "last_page_order": 391
}