{
  "id": 8717683,
  "name": "Helen P. WASHBURN v. STUART'S MUFFLER SHOP & Alfred C. HENDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Washburn v. Stuart's Muffler Shop",
  "decision_date": "1974-09-30",
  "docket_number": "74-81",
  "first_page": "59",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 Ark. 59"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "513 S.W.2d 913"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 2996,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.886,
    "sha256": "81af5604d6b4ad4f25dff4cd0280e89e61db1626351bdcd80572911b82a8051a",
    "simhash": "1:daad12e18e2e3d66",
    "word_count": 501
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:07.797047+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Helen P. WASHBURN v. STUART\u2019S MUFFLER SHOP & Alfred C. HENDERSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John A. Fogleman, Justice.\nAppellant was injured when struck by a motor vehicle driven by Alfred C. Henderson, the agent, servant or employee of Stuart\u2019s Muffler Shop. The incident occurred in the intersection of .Broadway and Eighth Street in Little Rock, which is controlled by traffic lights. When struck, appellant was walking in a painted crosswalk provided for pedestrians. Appellant\u2019s sole point for reversal is the failure of the circuit judge to include Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-627 (b) (Repl. 1957) as a part of AMI 601 (Violation of Statute or Ordinance as Evidence of Negligence) as she requested. We find no error and affirm.\nThe statute which appellant insists should have been included in the instruction is a part of \u00a7 76 of Act 300 of 1937 and reads thus:\n(b) whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.\nSec. 76 is a part of Art. X of the Act, which is entitled \u201cPedestrians\u2019 Right & Duties.\u201d Sec. 75 is the opening section of that article. It reads:\nSection 75. Pedestrians Subject to Traffic-Control Signals. Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic-control signals at intersections as heretofore declared in this act, but at all other places pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and shall be subject to restrictions stated in this article.\nWe take \u00a7 75 to be the introductory provision of this article and to govern the remaining sections including 76 (b). The latter section could not be applicable because of the traffic control signals at the intersection. Thus, we cannot say that appellant was \u201caccorded the privileges\u201d of \u00a7 76 (b) to the extent that Henderson could have eeen held guilty of a violation of the statute simply because he overtook and passed a vehicle stopped at the crosswalk to permit appellant to cross the roadway. For this reason, there was no error in the trial court\u2019s refusal to include \u00a7 76 (b) in the instruction. This does not mean that a jury might not have found that appellant\u2019s conduct constituted negligence. It simply means that the court properly refused to tell the jury that a driver\u2019s overtaking and passing a vehicle stopped to permit appellant to pass was, in and of itself, evidence of negligence.\nSince we make this disposition of the case on the merits, we do not consider appellee\u2019s argument that the judgment should be affirmed because of appellant\u2019s failure to designate sufficient record for review of the point relied upon by her and because of her failure to file a statement of the points to be relied upon, after having filed a less-then-complete record.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John A. Fogleman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dodds, Kidd, Hendricks & Ryan, for appellant.",
      "Whetstone & Whetstone, by: Bud Whetstone, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Helen P. WASHBURN v. STUART\u2019S MUFFLER SHOP & Alfred C. HENDERSON\n74-81\n513 S.W. 2d 913\nOpinion delivered September 30, 1974\nDodds, Kidd, Hendricks & Ryan, for appellant.\nWhetstone & Whetstone, by: Bud Whetstone, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0059-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 85
}