{
  "id": 8721278,
  "name": "W. R. TALLEY v. ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Talley v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1968-04-08",
  "docket_number": "5-4544",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "244 Ark. 538"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "426 S.W.2d 164"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 3751,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "sha256": "afea9d51726f4cee7a68382c2a372512ee6411db071977e201d24a6c1337cce3",
    "simhash": "1:a651c2528cada0d1",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:25.068679+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Fogleman, J,, disqualified.",
      "Byrd, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "W. R. TALLEY v. ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is an action brought by the appellant, W. R. Talley, for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a highway collision involving four vehicles, all headed north. At the close of Talley\u2019s proof the court directed a verdict in favor of the appellee, Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. For reversal Talley contends that his proof raised questions of fact for the jury.\nTalley has brought up only his own testimony and that of a State police officer who reached the scene about ten minutes after the accident happened. As the officer\u2019s testimony added nothing of significance to Talley\u2019s own account, our statement of the facts is taken from .Talley\u2019s version of the occurrence.-\nThe accident happened at about 11:30 p.m. on a two-lane one-way overpass that is part of Interstate Highway 55 in Crittenden county. Basically, the accident was caused by the negligence of Charlie Sims, who had stopped his car in the righthand lane of traffic on the overpass, with his lights turned off.\nThe Arkansas-Best Freight truck, with Talley behind it, was approaching the overpass from the south, in the righthand lane, at about 50' or 55 miles an hour. The speed limit was 70. Talley, preparing to pass, pulled over into the lefthand lane and was trailing the truck in that position when the two vehicles entered the overpass.\nAfter the truck passed the crest of the rise its headlights came downward and revealed the stationary Sims car. The truckdriver swerved to his left and succeeded in merely scraping the left rear part of the Sims car as he went past it. The truckdriver at once started to return to the righthand lane, but when he came to a stop his truck was still angling across the center line of the overpass, leaving the lefthand lane partly blocked.\nTalley, too, had seen the Sims car when it appeared in the truck\u2019s headlights. He at once hit his brakes and succeeded in bringing his car to a stop about ten feet behind the ABF truck, without there having been any contact between the two. A few seconds later a fourth vehicle, also coming from the south, skidded into the rear end of Talley\u2019s car and knocked it against the ABF truck and the lefthand side of the overpass, causing the injuries to Talley and his car.\nTalley charges the ABF driver with negligence in three particulars, but each charge may be answered in a few words.\nFirst, Talley asserts that the truckdriver was traveling at an excessive speed. There are two flaws in this contention. One, there is no proof that the truckdriver\u2019s speed was excessive. Two, there was no causal connection between the speed of the vehicles and the ensuing collision between Talley\u2019s car and the fourth vehicle involved in the accident.\nSecondly, Tally asserts that the ABF driver changed lanes without signaling his intention to do so. Even so, that omission was not the proximate cause of Talley\u2019s injuries. In fact, Talley testified that if the driver had given a lane-changing signal, \u201cI would still have hit my brakes just as I did.\u201d He went on to say that in his opinion the truckdriver did all he could to avoid the accident.\nThirdly, Talley asserts that the truckdriver was negligent in stopping his truck in such a manner as to obstruct the highway. The trouble is that Talley\u2019s complaint contained no such allegation of negligence, nor was there any request that the pleadings be amended to conform to the proof. Thus that issue was not before the court when it granted ABF\u2019s motion for a directed verdict.\nAffirmed.\nFogleman, J,, disqualified.\nByrd, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Spears & Sloan, for appellant.",
      "Harper, Young, Durden & Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. R. TALLEY v. ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.\n5-4544\n426 S. W. 2d 164\nOpinion delivered April 8, 1968\nSpears & Sloan, for appellant.\nHarper, Young, Durden & Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 562,
  "last_page_order": 565
}