{
  "id": 1614164,
  "name": "Hot Springs Street Railway Company v. Adams",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hot Springs Street Railway Co. v. Adams",
  "decision_date": "1950-01-30",
  "docket_number": "4-9042",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 Ark. 506"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "226 S.W.2d 354"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "200 Ark. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453435
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/200/0516-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 4608,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0862798789482277e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7597377298830935
    },
    "sha256": "5ec13302d23252c69f7cf269e82abc314b27277dfcd16c0e0acb347e389e7129",
    "simhash": "1:865c0b5a89e447ed",
    "word_count": 778
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:41:58.287119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hot Springs Street Railway Company v. Adams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, J.\nThe appellees, O. Fred Adams and his wife, recovered judgments totaling $10,500 for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a collision between their car and a bus operated by the appellant. We discuss two of the appellant\u2019s contentions, as one necessitates a reversal and the other goes to the question of whether the case should be dismissed.\nOn the latter point it is contended that the defendant below was entitled to an instructed verdict because its negligence was not proved and Adams\u2019 contributory negligence was established as a matter of law. This argument must be rejected. The appellees, residents of Clark County, were driving along Central Avenue in the city of Hot Springs at about noon on June 29, 1948. Adams, who had not traveled this street before, saw just ahead a traffic signal that intermittently flashed a red light. He testified that he threw out his hand and stopped as quickly as possible. A second or so later the appellant\u2019s bus struck the rear end of his car, knocking the vehicle fifteen feet or more and causing the injuries and property damage complained of.\nThe appellant\u2019s argument is based mainly on its proof that this traffic signal is merely cautionary and that the Hot Springs police have never required drivers to come to a halt before proceeding past the light. But the statute sanctions a failure to stop only when the cautionary light is yellow; drivers are required to stop before passing a flashing red light. Ark. Stats. (1947), \u00a7 75-506. Adams was a stranger to Hot Springs; it is not intimated that he knew the local custom with reference to this traffic signal. Consequently he was not necessarily negligent in making a quick stop, as he could assume that any vehicle behind him would, be driven in anticipation of his making the stop required by law. The jury were warranted in concluding that the appellant\u2019s bus driver was negligent in not foreseeing that the Adams car might come to a standstill before continuing past the signal light.\nSecond, it is asserted that a juror failed to reveal information while the jurymen were being selected. The appellant\u2019s attorney inquired whether any members of the panel had been represented by any of the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys. Two veniremen answered in the affirmative, and after some additional interrogation the court excused them both. Later on, while the jury was considering its verdict, tlie appellant\u2019s counsel examined the files in the circuit clerk\u2019s office and learned that another juror, S. D. Calloway, was represented in a pending suit by J. H. Lookadoo, one of the appellees\u2019 attorneys. When the jury brought in its unanimous verdict the appellant moved for a mistrial and questioned Calloway about his pending case. Calloway said he had not mentioned it because he thought it had been settled, and later said, \u201cI didn\u2019t understand it [the question], I guess.\u201d When the motion for a new trial was presented Calloway testified that he held up his hand when the veniremen were questioned about Mr. Lookadoo\u2019s having-been their attorney, but the appellant\u2019s lawyer did not ask him any questions.\nWe believe that the trial court\u2019s failure to declare a mistrial was an abuse of discretion constituting- reversible error. Even if we accept Calloway\u2019s statement that he held up his hand, it is perfectly clear that he knew his gesture had not attracted the attention of appellant\u2019s counsel. Both his action in raising- his hand and his assertion that he thought his case had been settled show beyond any doubt that he understood the inquiry that was being put. The appellant was entitled to the information sought, as a basis for a peremptory challenge if not as a ground for challenging for cause. In these circumstances the juror\u2019s duty of candor extends well beyond a ready acquiescence in the supposition that counsel has decided not to pursue his inquiry. The very theory of an impartial jury trial demands that the juror take positive action to bring- his possible disqualification out into the open when the question is raised. \u201cNothing can destroy the integrity of juries more effectively than to allow prejudiced jurors to sit in a case.\u201d Anderson v. State, 200 Ark. 516, 139 S. W. 2d 396. For us to approve the denial of a mistrial in this case would, we think, be a disservice to our system of jury trials.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "House, Moses \u00e9 Holmes and Thomas G. Trimble, Jr., for appellant.",
      "J. H. Lookacloo, Jaones T. Gooch and Agnes Ashby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hot Springs Street Railway Company v. Adams.\n4-9042\n226 S. W. 2d 354\nOpinion delivered January 30, 1950.\nHouse, Moses \u00e9 Holmes and Thomas G. Trimble, Jr., for appellant.\nJ. H. Lookacloo, Jaones T. Gooch and Agnes Ashby, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 532
}