{ "id": 8724170, "name": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Sorrells", "name_abbreviation": "Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Sorrells", "decision_date": "1941-01-20", "docket_number": "4-6157", "first_page": "748", "last_page": "752", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "201 Ark. 748" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "146 S.W.2d 704" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "127 S. W. 2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1459761 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/198/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 Ark. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 S. W. 2d 985", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 1175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435064 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/1175-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S. W. 2d 638", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435132 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 S. W. 2d 45", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435307 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S. W. 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 Ark. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1536313 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/114/0056-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 7035, "ocr_confidence": 0.509, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1238446404552758e-07, "percentile": 0.5741541302214916 }, "sha256": "2e562b437268b76cc815f5e2448305b74fe84520b4978c5320d74003194c1e9f", "simhash": "1:c769c27f224000dd", "word_count": 1256 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:11.265597+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Sorrells." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellee recovered a judgment in the sum of $500 to compensate an injury sustained while attempting to debark from one of appellant\u2019s trains on which he was riding as a passenger. The' testimony is in irreconcilable conflict; hut it is insisted that the testimony on appellee\u2019s' behalf, when given its highest probative value, is insufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment rendered thereon.\nAppellee\u2019s testimony was to the following effect. He bought a ticket at Benton to Traskwood, and found a seat in the smoking-car. Two members of the train passed through the car while the train was going from Benton to Traskwood, about fifteen minutes being required for that trip. One of appellant\u2019s employees, a conductor, not then on duty, placed a small box in the vestibule of the car. The box was made of pasteboard, and was about 10 or 12 inches square and about 6 inches high, and contained only the cap of the conductor who was riding \u201cdeadhead,\u201d as he expressed it. According* to the testimony of the conductor of the train, the box \u201cwas lying\u2019 over the couplings on the right-hand side as they came out; it was not in the way. \u2019 \u2019\nIt is certain that the box was in the vestibule, and according to appellee\u2019s testimony, it was In his way when he left the car. Just how it got \u201cin the way\u201d is not clear. The movement of the train may have placed it there. It is argued that, even though the box had gotten in the way, it had not been there long enough for its presence to be discovered. But, according to appellee\u2019s testimony, two members of the train crew went through the vestibule, not together, but first one, and then, later, the other.\nAppellee testified that as he left the train, there was another passenger in front of him, and that \u201c. . . the box was on the left-hand side, just as you turn to make the steps out of the train. I know the box was on the left-hand side, because I hit it with my left foot, and it got between my legs, and I plunged out to the bottom on the ground. As I started to make the turn I stumbled over the box and started to fall, and I grabbed at the railing and plunged plumb out on the ground. \u2019 \u2019 There was testimony sharply contradictory; but there was other testimony corroborating that of appellee. The truth of this testimony was, of course, a question for the jury. If this testimony is true \u2014 and its truth has been concluded by the verdict of the jury \u2014 we think it sufficient to support tlie finding that the presence of the box should have been discovered and its possible peril anticipated, had that high degree of care been exercised which the law imposed upon the carrier for the protection of its passengers.\nExceptions were saved to instructions numbered 1 and 2 defining this duty. These were to the effect that the \u201crailroad company owed its passengers the highest degree of care which a prudent and cautious man would exercise reasonably consistent with its mode of conveyance and practical operation of its train during the time they are on the train or getting on or off thereof.\u201d\nThese instructions conformed to the law as it has been frequently declared, the case of Prescott & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 114 Ark. 56, 167 S. W. 486, being one of many to that effect.\nAn exception was saved to instruction numbered 3, defining the measure of damages. This instruction reads as follows: \u201cIf you find for the plaintiff in this case you will assess his damages at such a sum as you find from the evidence will reasonably compensate him for the injuries sustained, if any, and in arriving at your verdict you may take into consideration his physical pain and mental anguish occasioned by the injury, if any; his doctor\u2019s bills incurred, if any, and that which he may be reasonably expected to incur in the future, if any, by reason of the injury, if any; his loss of time from work, if any, by reason of said injury, if any, and his pecuniary loss in the future, if any.\u201d\nWe think there was no error in giving this instruc- \u2022 tion. Among other objections made to it is the one that it permits a recovery to compensate future loss of time, whereas there is no testimony to support the finding that appellee sustained a permanent injury. It is objected also that the verdict is excessive.\nWe' think neither of these objections can be sustained. Dr. L. L. Marshall testified that he made an X-ray examination, which showed \u201ca crushing of the inter-vertebral disc between the 4th and 5th lumbar vertebrae, and overlapping of the 5th lateral process over the crest of the ilium, and separation of the sacro-iliac joint on the left side,\u201d and that \u201cAn injury of that kind is always permanent, the seriousness of it depends on the class of labor the man has to do; it usually causes hack-ache upon standing or lifting.\u201d\nThis testimony raised the question whether the injury was permanent. The testimony of Dr. Ashby, who gave appellee treatment on four or five occasions, is corroborative of that of Dr. Marshall. Appellee himself testified that he suffered great pain, and for three months was unable to work. These were, of course, all questions for the jury, and we are unable to say that the verdict is excessive.\nDr. Marshall\u2019s testimony had been taken by deposition, and in the deposition he made the statements above quoted. In his examination Dr. Ashby was asked this question: \u201cQ. Doctor Marshall testified that that disc in between the 4th and 5th lumbar vertebraes was crushed and injured, is that a permanent injury- \u2014 an injury of that kind?\u201d Upon objection being made, and before the question was answered, it was re-stated as follows: \u201c Q. Doctor, I am asking you if any injury to the back which results in a crushing of the disc between the 4th and 5th lumbar vertebraes \u2014 I am asking you if that is a serious, permanent and painful injury?\u201d\nWe think there was no error in permitting Dr. Ashby to answer this question. He' had not made an X-ray examination; but Dr. Marshall had, and Dr. Marshall had stated the facts disclosed by this picture. The question to Dr. Ashby was predicated upon testimony offered at the trial; but the truth of that testimony was, of course, a question for the jury. We think it was not error to permit Dr. Ashby, as an expert, to express an opinion on the prognosis of the injury which Dr. Marshall said the X-ray picture disclosed. This practice is quite common, and has many times been approved by this court. Late cases approving this practice' are: Arkansas Baking Co. v. Wyman, 185 Ark. 310, 47 S. W. 2d 45; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Fodrea, 185 Ark. 155, 46 S. W. 2d 638; Safeway Stores, Inc., v. Ingram, 185 Ark. 1175, 51 S. W. 2d 985; Great Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Lankford, 198 Ark. 196, 127 S. W. 2d 811.\nUpon the whole ease, we find no error, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Henry Donham and Richard M. Rywi, for appellant.", "Kenneth C. Goffelt and Wm. J. Kirby, for-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Sorrells.\n4-6157\n146 S. W. 2d 704\nOpinion delivered January 20, 1941.\nHenry Donham and Richard M. Rywi, for appellant.\nKenneth C. Goffelt and Wm. J. Kirby, for-appellee." }, "file_name": "0748-01", "first_page_order": 766, "last_page_order": 770 }