{
  "id": 1740820,
  "name": "Ellis M. WILKINS and Mary Louise WILKINS v. EL DORADO & WESSON RAILROAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilkins v. El Dorado & Wesson Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1984-04-16",
  "docket_number": "83-258",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "239",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "282 Ark. 236"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "668 S.W.2d 6"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "172 S.W. 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1915,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ark. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1532248
      ],
      "year": 1915,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/116/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "490 F.2d 1112",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        228705
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/490/1112-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 4194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.862,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3152598708993427e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6253302798734598
    },
    "sha256": "ebf708b691b7d5292f2e26b72374f7c165611b5a8ab98c8425ae067c257ada20",
    "simhash": "1:7cbe685be51adba8",
    "word_count": 699
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:24.101080+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ellis M. WILKINS and Mary Louise WILKINS v. EL DORADO & WESSON RAILROAD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice.\nEllis M. Wilkins, appellant, sued his employer, the El Dorado and Wesson Railroad, appellee, under the Federal Employers Liability Act. Appellant contended that he injured his back while lifting railroad ties over the side of a hopper or gondola car, a railroad car with sides of varying height but being three feet four inches in this case. In his complaint, Wilkins stated the railroad was negligent in failing to provide a safe place to work and failing to provide him with reasonably safe and suitable machinery and tools with which to do his work. Appellant\u2019s wife, Mary Louise Wilkins, alleged a loss of consortium due to her husband\u2019s injury. The trial court sustained an objection to testimony offered by the appellant on rebuttal. The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court under Rule 29 (4) (b). We reverse.\nThe question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding| testimony offered by the appellant on rebuttal. A review of the record reveals that evidence was elicited by Appellee in its case in chief on the standard of unloading cross ties from hopper or gondola cars. D. B. Hart, a witness for the railroad, now employed by the south Central Arkansas Railway and previous to that the Rock Island Railroad testified as follows:\nQ. : Do you have an opinion as to what the standard of the railroad industry is in unloading cross ties from gondola cars?\nA.: In the many years that I have witnessed the unloading of cars, the method used was by hand.\nQ.: All right, and \u201cby hand,\u201d that means with railroad section crew or laborers picking up the railroad ties and lifting them out and getting them out of the gondola?\nA.: That\u2019s correct.\nQ.: And has that been true, as far as you\u2019re concerned, throughout the railroad industry to your knowledge?\nA.: To my knowledge, yes.\nHart was allowed to give his opinion about this practice, including the size of the crews, in the industry based upon his employment with other railroads. This method of unloading and other information surrounding the practice was an important aspect in this case.\nIn an effort to rebut this testimony, appellant sought to introduce the testimony of Roosevelt Manning, an employee of forty-seven years with the Missouri Pacific Railroad who would testify how he had seen railroad ties unloaded from gondola or hopper cars and the size of the crews during his long work experience. Without stating why, the trial court excluded this testimony.\nIn Panger v. Duluth, Winnepeg and Pacific Railway Co., 490 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1974) the trial court excluded testimony offered by the defendant railroad as to the use of a line-up procedure by other railroads. The Eighth Circuit stated:\nThe practices prevailing in an industry are some indication, although not controlling of what a reasonable and prudent practice is and should have been admitted. [Cites omitted]. The plaintiff was allowed to give his opinion regarding the use of the line-up. The line-up and what information was necessary to be included therein was very much an important aspect in this case. Although we cannot know upon what basis the jury found negligence on the part of the Railway, we think exclusion of this relevant testimony substantially prejudiced the Railway\u2019s attempt to justify its line-up procedure. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.\nWe have held before in Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Traction Company, 116 Ark. 125, 172 S.W. 843 (1915) that rebuttal testimony must rebut the testimony advance by the other side and should not consist of testimony which might have been advanced as proof in chief. Here, the testimony on standards used in the industry developed during the trial and was therefore a proper subject for rebuttal.\nWe reverse and remand.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mays ir Crutcher, P.A., by: Richard L. Mays and Judith C. Lansky, for appellant.",
      "Compton, Prewett, Thomas \u00e9r Hickey, P.A., by: Robert C. Compton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ellis M. WILKINS and Mary Louise WILKINS v. EL DORADO & WESSON RAILROAD\n83-258\n668 S.W.2d 6\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 16, 1984\n[Rehearing denied May 21, 1984.]\nMays ir Crutcher, P.A., by: Richard L. Mays and Judith C. Lansky, for appellant.\nCompton, Prewett, Thomas \u00e9r Hickey, P.A., by: Robert C. Compton, for appellee.\nHickman, Purtle & Hollingsworth, JJ., would strike petition."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 275
}