{
  "id": 1734219,
  "name": "Riggan v. Langley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Riggan v. Langley",
  "decision_date": "1964-11-16",
  "docket_number": "5-3373",
  "first_page": "649",
  "last_page": "651",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "238 Ark. 649"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "383 S.W.2d 661"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "221 Ark. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1656585
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/221/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 812",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1737893
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0812-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 Ark. 805",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1681323
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/236/0805-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Ark. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720978
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/197/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 Ark. 798",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1691602
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/233/0798-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ark. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1614185
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/216/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 S. W. 2d 487",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1646657
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0938-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 928",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Ark. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719710
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/197/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ark. 1082",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1462308
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/196/1082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1738040
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0055-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 372,
    "char_count": 4981,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3204694655483216e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6264349774832433
    },
    "sha256": "ee11d46c585e4394317d75ecd25801e621972c6cd266ded2377bdb144db23a73",
    "simhash": "1:7b6ccb83c1269fb6",
    "word_count": 847
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:57.788571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Riggan v. Langley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Associate Justice.\nThe appellants, Tommy Riggan and his father, James A. Riggan, brought this action against the appellee, P. J. Langley, for the recovery of damages resulting from an automobile collision. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the appellee. For reversal of this judgment the appellants first contend that the court erred in permitting the introduction of pictures of the roadway where the accident occurred. Appellants'argue that the pictures were inadmissible because they were taken a year after the accident and at a time when the conditions of the road had been changed. The pictures in question represent different views of the road at the crest of the hill where this accident occurred, the scene of the accident itself, and the location of certain vehicles exactly as they were following the accident.\nThe accident occurred when appellants\u2019 vehicle collided with an oncoming car while going around appellee\u2019s unoccupied vehicle which was parked partially on the road and in a roadside ditch. Appellee\u2019s evidence shows that in all material respects the photographs substantially represented conditions as they existed on the day the collision occurred with the exception that the roadside ditch was not as deep because of the grading of the road in the interim. Any variance in the road conditions, as well as the time interval of one year, was fully explained to the jury. The true test of the admissibility of photographs into evidence depends upon the fairness and accuracy of the portrayal of the scene. Wheeler Admx. v. Delco Ben, 237 Ark. 55, 371 S. W. 2d 130. In Powell Brothers Truck Lines, Inc. v. Barnett, 196 Ark. 1082, 121 S. W. 2d 116, we said:\n* * It makes no difference, of course, when a picture was taken, if the evidence shows that the conditions are the same as when the accident occurred, or when the evidence shows the difference, if there is any.\u201d Also, see 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, \u00a7 731; Jewell Tea Co. v. McCrary, 197 Ark. 294, 122 S. W. 2d 534, and Southern National Insurance Co. v. Williams, 224 Ark. 928, 277 S. W. 2d 487. The admissibility of photographs as an aid to the jury is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge and unless that discretion is abused we do not disturb the trial court\u2019s ruling. McGeorge Contracting Co. v. Mizell, 216 Ark. 509, 226 S. W. 2d 566. In the case at bar we think the trial court correctly admitted the photographs in evidence. The jury was not misled since the evidence fully apprised the jury of any variance in any material conditions.\nThe appellants next contend that the court erred in giving appellee\u2019s Instruction No. 8 to which a general objection was made. This standard instruction defined the duties of both the appellants and the appellee with respect to keeping a proper lookout and a vehicle under control. The final sentence of this instruction tells the jury that the failure to meet the defined standard of .care is negligence. Appellants urge that the court should have told the jury that violation of these \u2018 \u2018 rules of the road \u2019 \u2019 is only evidence of negligence. The question presented is somewhat similar to the one considered in Wright v. Covey, 233 Ark. 798, 349 S. W. 2d 344.\n* * In many instances it is proper to say that a certain fact, such as the violation of a statute, is merely evidence of negligence rather than negligence in itself. Gill v. Whiteside-Hemby Drug Co., 197 Ark. 425, 122 S. W. 2d 597. But this instruction is not confined to a particular fact; it is concerned with the plaintiff\u2019s failure to exercise such care as would be exercised by a reasonably prudent person. It must be obvious that the plaintiff\u2019s failure to conform to that standard of care is negligence, simply because that is really the legal definition of negligence.\u201d\nThis instruction was not inherently erroneous and the fallacy, if any, should have been reached by a specific objection in order to give the court the opportunity to correct it. Swift v. Barker, 236 Ark. 805, 370 S. W. 2d 71; Bussell v. Missouri Pacific RR Co., 237 Ark. 812, 376 S. W. 2d 545. No error was committed in giving this information.\nAppellants\u2019 final contention is that the court erred in giving appellee\u2019s Instruction No. 9 as modified. This instruction also defined several statutory \u201crules of the road\u201d applicable to the issues in this case. In givingappellee\u2019s instruction the court modified it by including verbatim one of appellants \u2019 instructions which purported to be verbatim Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-647 (a) (Supp. 1963). However, it omitted certain words from this statute. Thus, this invited error cannot be assigned to the trial court. The Home Company v. Lammers, 221 Ark. 311, 254 S. W. 2d 65.\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed..",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Associate Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert N. Karelin, Ed McDonald and Ben McCray, for appellant.",
      "Coclcrill, Laser, McGehee $ Sharp and Burl C. Rotenberry, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Riggan v. Langley.\n5-3373\n383 S. W. 2d 661\nOpinion delivered November 16, 1964.\nRobert N. Karelin, Ed McDonald and Ben McCray, for appellant.\nCoclcrill, Laser, McGehee $ Sharp and Burl C. Rotenberry, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0649-01",
  "first_page_order": 673,
  "last_page_order": 675
}