{
  "id": 1650336,
  "name": "Parish v. Ben M. Hogan & Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parish v. Ben M. Hogan & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1954-05-03",
  "docket_number": "5-411",
  "first_page": "600",
  "last_page": "601",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 Ark. 601"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "267 S.W.2d 503"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 849",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1653139
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0849-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.062233744129483994
    },
    "sha256": "6d97da3cfae0ba9d229d47becfad37703a6f7624598a55d03b9488c9a0076ac4",
    "simhash": "1:1b0f87258d4605f2",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:33.600099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Parish v. Ben M. Hogan & Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robinson, J.\nAppellant J. D. Parish was injured while riding as a guest in a truck owned by Ben M. Hogan and Company and being operated by Hogan\u2019s employee, Piezel. The court directed a verdict for the defendant on the theory there was no evidence of willful and wanton misconduct on the part of Hogan\u2019s driver which would sustain a verdict in favor of the appellant Parish.\nBefore a guest in an automobile can recover against the owner or operator, he must show that the automobile was being driven in a willful or wanton manner. Ark. Stats., \u00a7 75-915 and \u00a7 75-913. Here there is no evidence whatever of willfulness or wantonness on the part of the driver of the truck. For a full discussion of the terms \u201cwillful\u201d and \u201cwanton\u201d see Steward, Adm. v. Thomas, 222 Ark. 849, 262 S. W. 2d 901.\nThe truck involved had an A-frame mounted on the rear extending upward for several feet. The mishap occurred when the driver, Piezel, attempted to cross a bridge and the A-frame came in contact with the superstructure of the bridge. Undoubtedly there is evidence that Piezel was negligent; he was either negligent in estimating the height of the A-frame in relation to the upper portion of the bridge, or he simply forgot about the A-frame being on the truck; but there is no evidence that such negligence amounted to willful and wanton misconduct. In fact, the appellant Farish testified: \u201cQ. There was nothing said, no warning given you by Mr. Fiez.el? A. No, he thought it would go under there himself, I am satisfied, or he wouldn\u2019t have pulled under there.\u201d There is no evidence that the accident occurred from any other cause than that explained by the appellant, and his testimony does not make out a case of willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the driver of the truck.\nThe court was correct in directing the verdict, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robinson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles L. Farish and John G. Moore, for appellant.",
      "Mehaffy, Smith S Williams and S. Hubert Mayes, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Parish v. Ben M. Hogan & Company.\n5-411\n267 S. W. 2d 503\nOpinion delivered May 3, 1954.\nCharles L. Farish and John G. Moore, for appellant.\nMehaffy, Smith S Williams and S. Hubert Mayes, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0600-01",
  "first_page_order": 622,
  "last_page_order": 623
}