{ "id": 1453536, "name": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Campbell, Administrator", "name_abbreviation": "Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Campbell", "decision_date": "1940-06-17", "docket_number": "4-6007", "first_page": "1056", "last_page": "1060", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 Ark. 1056" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "143 S.W.2d 9" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "137 S. W. 2d 934", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1453362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/200/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S. W. 2d 1246", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ark. 877", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725249 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/194/0877-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S. W. 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 Ark. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1580445 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/129/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S. W. 2d 447", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Ark. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1411116 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/193/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 S. W. 989", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ark. 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1586191 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/145/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S. W. 2d 539", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ark. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1428394 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/188/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S. W. 2d 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 Ark. 914", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1432121 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/187/0914-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S. W. 2d 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Ark. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1389744 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/182/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S. W. 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1344009 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/107/0431-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 558, "char_count": 8873, "ocr_confidence": 0.521, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.182650786714694e-08, "percentile": 0.5092368319542954 }, "sha256": "45743a0cc436633b8515f78d317612757a371b9095c04ace28945a6aa136486f", "simhash": "1:85137551193dc99a", "word_count": 1587 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:40.186957+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Humphreys and Mehaffy, JJ., dissent." ], "parties": [ "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Campbell, Administrator." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Griffin Smiti-i, C. J.\nThe appeal is from a judgment for $25,000 on a verdict finding that appellant railroad company violated the lookout statute. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 11144. In consequence of this alleged negligence, appellee\u2019s intestate was killed.\nPrior to the tragedy F. O. Campbell had been a locomotive fireman, engaged for many years by the Rock Island system. For three years or more he had been laid off; but, as his wife testified, was occasionally called to make runs, \u201cand had retained his seniority.\u201d\nCampbell was killed February 26, 1938, .presumably by freight train No. 160, operating between McGehee and Little Rock. For three years preceding the accident Campbell had lived in Pine Bluff, having been employed by Independent Ice Company. There is testimony that he did not work the afternoon of the day he was killed, but made the statement he intended to go to Little Rock to visit relatives, and expected to catch a freight train. However, there is the testimony of R. E. McClung that he drove from Pine Bluff to Little Rock, saw Campbell on the highway, and gave him a \u201clift.\u201d Campbell, McClung said, got out of the automobile at the Biddle Shops near the \u201cedge\u201d of Little Rock. McClung says he left Pine Bluff about six o\u2019clock p. m.\nFreight Train No. 160 reached Little Rock about 9:30. Campbell\u2019s body was found wedged between main-' line and spur-track rails about twenty or thirty minutes after the train had passed over the Ninth street crossing in Little Rock. The dead man\u2019s skull was crushed from the back, and the body was mangled and dismembered. There were indications that it had been dragged in both directions by passing cars or a locomotive.\nThere were 33 cars in the train. In East Little Rock there were switching operations. Five cars were diverted to a sidetrack near the point where Campbell\u2019s body was found. In this operation the cars were separated at a point south of the switchtrack. Twenty-two cars were left on the main line. Eleven cars were pulled north far enough to clear the switch. As explained in appellee\u2019s brief, \u201cThe switch was thrown and the engine and eleven cars backed through the switch, and five cars were cut off and left on the switchtrack, and the remaining six cars and engine pulled back onto the main line. The engine and six cars backed up and were coupled to the 22 cars which had been left on the main line south of the switch, and then the train went on into North Little Rock. \u201d \u2022\nThe track is straight for a considerable distance in the direction from which the train came.\nH. A. Brothers, night watchman for Southern Cotton Oil Company, testified he was approximately 100 feet from the tracks; that he noticed the freight train as it approached on the main line from the south; that it was probably 1,500 feet from him when he first saw it, and that while standing on the office porch he saw a man walking north on the railroad. The point from which this observation was made was 200 feet from where Campbell\u2019s body was found, or perhaps a little farther. The last time witness saw Campbell, he had probably had time to walk 100 feet. \"Witness went back to his place of business. At that time Campbell was still walking the track, and the train was approaching. He did not know the walker, and could not identify him except by the clothing. Because of similarity in dress, however, witness identified the body subsequently found as that of the person he saw on the tracks. At another place in his testimony, Brothers said that when he last saw Campbell, he was \u201ca couple, or three hundred feet back\u201d [south of where the body was found]. The train was then four or five blocks away; the headlight was-shining brightly, and Campbell was in the light\u2019s glare. He estimated that the train was moving at \u2018'\u2018twenty or twenty-five miles an hour \u2014 they usually run that fast along there.\u201d This statement was qualified with the explanation that he \u201cdidn\u2019t pay much attention to it \u2014 I could not judge the speed of the train much from where I was standing.\u201d\nThere was grease on Campbell\u2019s body. Testimony was to the effect that the kind of grease so found was similar to that used on engines; that grease does not escape from car journals. It is urged that because of the nature of the grease an inference arose that it was from the engine.\nThe case was tried by the defendant upon the theory that Campbell boarded the train at Pine Bluff, and was killed in attempting to leave it while the switching operations were being conducted. This theory was offset by the testimony of McClung, who says he brought Campbell to Little Rock in his automobile, arriving- at Biddle Station about 7:15. Appellant directs attention to McClung\u2019s explanation that he came to Little Rock to purchase automobile appurtenances; that he did not inform his wife of his intention to make the trip; that he left Pine Bluff over a route not ordinarily used \u201cbecause it was a hobby\u201d; that he read in the newspapers that Campbell had been killed, but did not mention to Campbell\u2019s family for two or three weeks that he had brought him to Little Rock.\nThe engineer and fireman testified that they were at their posts keeping a constant lookout, and did not see anyone walking the tracks. The head brakeman also testified he rode the engine a part of the time, and did not observe a pedestrian.'\nTrain operatives say they were over the tracks conducting the switching operations, and did not observe the dead man. It is argued, therefore, that even if McClung\u2019s story is true, Campbell, in some manner, reached the switchyard; that he must have undertaken to board the train (if he were not already on it) in order to ride to North Little Rock where his mother and father resided, and fell.\nThe engineer made a superficial inspection of the engine when he finished his run, but did not look underneath it. The final inspection, it was pointed out, is made by an employee whose duty it is to attend to such details.. Appellee thinks it is significant that this employee was not called as a witness.\nAppellee relies upon St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Gibson, 107 Ark. 431, 155 S. W. 510; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Crick, 182 Ark. 312, 32 S. W. 2d 815; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cook, 187 Ark. 914, 63 S. W. 2d 341; Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Grady, 188 Ark. 302, 65 S. W. 2d 539; Hines v. Johnson, 145 Ark. 592, 224 S. W. 989; and other cases of similar import.\nThe Crick Case, the Grady Case, and the Gibson Case were discussed in St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. v. Pace, 193 Ark. 484, 101 S. W. 2d 447.\nThe testimony of Brothers placed Campbell in proximity to the scene of the accident at a time when the train was several blocks away \u2014 approximately 1,500 feet, it was said. Campbell was then walking the track, but the witness did not know whether he was between the rails, or on the end of the ties. The engineer says he slowed down, and stopped to execute switching orders. Brothers, after going about his own business, does not know what Campbell did as the train approached. There is no suggestion that Campbell\u2019s hearing was impaired, or that he was not in possession of his normal faculties. He had been railroading for many years, and if his purpose was to wait until the train slackened its speed-sufficiently, and then to board it, there was nothing inconsistent in his act in walking on the track while the train was fifteen hundred feet away. Certainly no one knew Campbell\u2019s position better than he, and at the time Brothers says he saw him, Campbell was not in peril. Beyond this point the realm of speculation must be invaded to determine what occurred. There was no duty upon the part of the train operatives, when 1,500 feet away, even if they had seen Campbell, to assume that ne would not step aside, if in fact he were walking on the track. Of course the rule would be otherwise if the train was near enough to be dangerous.\nAs was said in Porter v. Scullen, et al., Receivers, 129 Ark. 77, 195 S. W. 17, \u201cIt is purely a matter of conjecture as to when or how Porter came in contact with the moving train. We cannot discover from the evidence whether he was struck by the engine or some other part of the train. \u2019 \u2019\nThat is true in the instant case. There is no evidence indicating how Campbell was struck, or what position he was in at the time. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ross, 194 Ark. 877, 109 S. W. 2d 1246; Missouri Pacific Railroad, Co. v. Penny, ante, p. 69, 137 S. W. 2d 934.\nFor the error in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant, the judgment is reversed. The cause, having been fully developed, is dismissed.\nHumphreys and Mehaffy, JJ., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Griffin Smiti-i, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Henry Donham and E. W. Moorhead, for appellant.", "R. W. Latmius, L. A. Hardin and L. B. Smead, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Campbell, Administrator.\n4-6007\n143 S. W. 2d 9\nOpinion delivered June 17, 1940.\nHenry Donham and E. W. Moorhead, for appellant.\nR. W. Latmius, L. A. Hardin and L. B. Smead, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1056-01", "first_page_order": 1074, "last_page_order": 1078 }