{ "id": 8718449, "name": "East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis, Administratrix", "name_abbreviation": "East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis", "decision_date": "1948-11-08", "docket_number": "4-8614", "first_page": "87", "last_page": "92", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "214 Ark. 87" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "215 S.W.2d 145" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "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": "21 S. W. 2d 611", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 Ark. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1393453 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/180/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 Ark. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1470224 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/212/0491-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 558, "char_count": 8823, "ocr_confidence": 0.496, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4014161325620333e-07, "percentile": 0.7989550742147515 }, "sha256": "191da7d50c7481fcc5ac4496757d0b9c8ab75c1403a1a6850dbed5401343bb33", "simhash": "1:72f89e0c6bfc82a7", "word_count": 1479 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:26.096089+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis, Administratrix." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Grieein Smith, Chief Justice.\nMary Ruth Dennis, who sued as administratrix, was the wife of Fred G. Dennis. He was killed when two trucks collided. A $16,000 recovery is to compensate the widow and two minor children.\nIt was alleged that a truck owned by East Texas Motor Freight Lines (at the time of collision driven by W. L. Johnson) negligently struck a tank truck driven by Dennis. Recovery of $3,600 by H. G. Elliott was based upon a partnership and ownership of the butane truck, the interest in which through appropriate proceedings vested in Elliott.\nNear midnight February 13, 1947, Johnson was driving south on Highway 67 near Hope when he observed the \u2018bobbing\u2019 motion of a motor vehicle approaching downgrade, headed north. Johnson testified that when the light was first seen he Avas proceeding at a moderate rate of speed, \u201cthirty, or maybe thirty-five miles an hour.\u201d But, insisted Johnson, when the trucks met he had slowed \u201con this hill, and was making twelve to fifteen miles, having shifted to third gear.\u201d\nBecause of what appeared to be erratic movements of the approaching light as the truck came rapidly downgrade with the motor \u201cwide open\u201d and the vehicle \u201cweaving from one side to the other,\u201d Johnson says he undertook to \u201cangle\u201d to the highway shoulder on his right side, and had partially succeeded when the butane truck \u201cducked in\u201d Avith a sideswiping motion. The result wrecked the butane truck, damaged Johnson\u2019s tractor and trailer, and caused the death of Dennis when his tankload of gas ignited.\nThe butane truck, according to Johnson, was built in such manner that it projected beyond the fenders, a structural characteristic spoken of as \u201can overdraft.\u201d This protrusion, Johnson testified, was approximately eight inches \u2014 that is, eight inches beyond the fender width. The extension corresponds with the distance Johnson thought Dennis had invaded beyond the highway median line. There were no damage marks on the left front bumper or left front fender of the butane truck. The witness undertook to explain this by saying that when he realized a collision was inevitable he cut to the right, thus throwing the front of his truck away from Dennis; and either a corner of the butane truck body, or its dual wheels, struck his dual wheels. This tended to \u201cslap\u201d Johnson\u2019s truck sideways. He admitted, however, that the front end of \u201cthis truck\u201d (presumptively the one driven by Dennis) did not have dual wheels. Only the rear axles were so equipped.\nThere was' testimony that the collision impact left marks on the butane truck back of the hood and virtually in a line with the driver\u2019s seat. Elliott, co-owner of the butane truck, and one of the plaintiffs, was asked if \u201cthis skirt on each side of the body here is flush with the front fender?\u201d His reply was that it protruded one inch beyond the fender. This was at variance with Johnson\u2019s testimony, he having stated that the \u201coverdraft\u201d was eight inches.\nAppellants rely largely upon distance measurements, photographs, a sketch, and skidmarks thought by the witness Mosier to have been made by the butane truck when it went approximately eight inches across the highway center. Mosier is a member of the State Police Force, with headquarters at Hope. He reached the scene about five minutes after the collision occurred, and in compliance with official requirements, prepared a report. This was used as a basis for his testimony when he was asked the following question:\n\u201cFrom your observation and your experience, what was your conclusion as to where the point of impact between the two vehicles was, with reference to the center of the highway?\u201d Without objection on the ground that the answer called f\u00f3r a conclusion, Mosier replied, \u201cI would say it was on the west side. \u2019 \u2019\nOther witnesses, all of whom made their observations substantially after Mosier had acted, testified they could not, with absolute certainty, say whether designated skid marks were imprinted before or after the trucks collided.\nOne witness found splinters \u201calong about the black center line,\u201d but be couldn\u2019t say tbey were \u201cmore on one side than another. \u2019 \u2019 However, the debris was apparently from the body of the East Texas truck.\nT. Gr. Anderson, of the Hope Police Force, testified regarding highway marks made by the trucks, and said, \u201cAll of the skid marks of the butane truck that I found were on the east side of the black line, until it reached a point opposite where it turned over. \u2019 \u2019\nJ. H. Porterfield, State Police Officer, testified that he found \u201cdual\u201d truck tracks over the black center line, apparently made by the vehicle traveling south \u2014 inferentially the East Texas truck. He could not, however, determine whether the marks were made before or after impact occurred.\nPorterfield\u2019s attention (and the attention of other witnesses) was called to a blackboard upon which the highway was illustrated, and from this, and from photographs pointed to, certain things and positions were indicated. The jury had the benefit of this direct evidence with the emphasis upon place and objects. The following appears in the examination of Porterfield:\n\u201cNow, would you take a piece of chalk and place marks on there adjacent to the black center strip so that the jury may understand just what you saw and understand the condition which you have just described?\u201d Answer, \u201cYes.\u201d The reporter\u2019s notation is: \u201cWitness makes a drawing on blackboard, then continues.\u201d The answer was: \u201cThese two dual wheel tracks showed a slight sign of rubber there just before they got on this side to follow the center line. That extended across there, and as it came across it got very plain: it made a blacker mark on the pavement than the black line. Over here was just a little rubber stain, and over here this tire on the black line showed to be pushed out to this point right here. The glass was along here.\u201d The reporter then added: \u201cThe witness in his answer was illustrating from a blackboard drawing.\u201d The witness further said that \u201cthe truck that made those marks was traveling south, toward Hope, because they stopped to a dead end \u2014 both tracks were in line. They had stopped about eight inches over the black line: in other words, a little more than the width of the tire.\u201d And finally: \u201cThen did the vehicle that made those tracks yon have described to the jury go over the center strip to the east side of the highway?\u201d Answer, \u201cThey did, yes.\u201d\nA statement the jury might have thought significant in connection with other evidence was Mosier\u2019s belief that the tracks or marks found eight inches over the highway center on Johnson\u2019s side were made by dual tires. The point is immediately opposite where Johnson thought the. wreck impact occurred. Since only the rear axles of the butane truck were equipped with dual wheels, the factfinders could have believed that the marks were not made by the butane truck at the time and in the manner testified to by Johnson.\nFrom the record of Porterfield\u2019s testimony we may draw conclusions; but certainly the jury could understand better, from the illustrations it is indicated the witness gave, than can we who as judges are asked to say the verdicts were not supported by substantial evidence. There are other references to charts, with emphasis on \u201chere,\u201d and \u201cthere,\u201d and \u201cover yonder,\u201d from which the jurors no doubt measured in their own minds what may to them have appeared to be inconsistencies, impossibilities, or inaccuracies. See Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corporation, 212 Ark. 491, 206 S. W. 2d 442.\nJohnson\u2019s testimony need not be treated as uncon-tradicted. He was a co-defendant, vitally interested in the result. The jury, however, must not capriciously disregard a defendant\u2019s testimony merely because that status is shown. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co. v. Williams, 180 Ark. 413, 21 S. W. 2d 611; Missouri Pacific Railroad Company et al. v. Ross, Adm\u2019r., 194 Ark. 877, 109 S. W. 2d 1246, and other cases with similar holdings.\nConsonant with views expressed by many reviewing courts, we have often said that physical facts may be more persuasive in determining the direction and effect of force, and in matters of timing and distance, than are statements by eye witnesses. So, in the ease before us, it cannot be said there was no substantial evidence in support of the plaintiffs\u2019 contention that the East Texas driver negligently caused tbe injury and damage, witbin legal contemplation. It is not argued that the instructions were erroneous, or that the judgments are excessive.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Grieein Smith, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Leland F. Leatherman and Busbee, Harrison & Wright, for appellant.", "McMath & Schoenfeld, Earl J. Lane and Shaver, Steivart & Jones, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Dennis, Administratrix.\n4-8614\n215 S. W. 2d 145\nOpinion delivered November 8, 1948.\nRehearing denied December 20, 1948.\nLeland F. Leatherman and Busbee, Harrison & Wright, for appellant.\nMcMath & Schoenfeld, Earl J. Lane and Shaver, Steivart & Jones, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0087-01", "first_page_order": 125, "last_page_order": 130 }