{
  "id": 12021001,
  "name": "John Henry RUSSELL, Debar Russell, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Cleophus Russell, Deceased v. Thomas COLSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Colson",
  "decision_date": "1996-09-30",
  "docket_number": "95-1147",
  "first_page": "112",
  "last_page": "115",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 Ark. 112"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "928 S.W.2d 794"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912750
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "892 S.W.2d 451",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1453567
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/319/0383-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ark. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449567
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/321/0314-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 6070,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0541881390584656e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5548989535683354
    },
    "sha256": "483b602229232a315fa814c2d6746de2d95c9bc70afb09d286471b05d1b85a34",
    "simhash": "1:3148bc151c4bccd1",
    "word_count": 986
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:03.555215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CORBIN, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "John Henry RUSSELL, Debar Russell, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Cleophus Russell, Deceased v. Thomas COLSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom GLAZE, Justice.\nOn November 21, 1990, John Henry Russell was driving a Ford pickup, eastbound on Highway 88 near the Altheimer city limits when it collided with Thomas Colson\u2019s Ford Bronco that was heading west on Highway 88. The collision took place at or about where the highway intersects Division Street. Russell, on April 24, 1992, filed suit against Colson, alleging the November 21 accident was caused solely and proximately by Col-son. Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in Colson\u2019s favor. Afterwards, Russell filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict or in the alternative, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.\nOn appeal, Russell argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment NOV or new trial and asserts the jury lacked substantial evidence to support its verdict in behalf of Col-son. Russell misstates this court\u2019s standard of review when the party seeking directed verdict or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the party having the burden of proof in a negligence case. As this court stated in Potlatch v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 321 Ark. 314, 902 S.W.2d 217 (1995), it does not affirm the granting of such motions except in rare circumstances. The Potlatch court further held that no matter how strong the evidence of the party having the burden of proof in a negligence case, \u201cthat party is not entitled to have those facts declared to have reality of law, unless there is utterly no rational basis in the situation, testimonially, circumstantially, or inferentially for a jury to believe otherwise.\u201d Here, Russell bore the burden of proof in this negligence case and is therefore bound by the standard reiterated in Potlatch. Russell\u2019s misstatements aside, we conclude from our review that Colson put on a substantial amount of evidence that supported the jury\u2019s verdict. And it is for this reason, we affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of a new trial. ARCP Rule 59(a)(6); Griffin v. Woodall, 318 Ark. 383, 892 S.W.2d 451 (1995).\nAt trial Russell and Colson offered conflicting and competing theories of how the November 21 accident occurred. Russell claimed that, as he was traveling east in his lane on Highway 88, the Colson vehicle, traveling west on the highway, was weaving, which caused Russell to enter the westbound lane in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid a collision. Colson, on the other hand, denied his vehicle weaved and offered evidence that Russell\u2019s pickup truck merely turned left into the westbound lane in an attempt to enter Division Street. Two eyewitnesses, Page Walt and Matt Jeter, testified in support of Colson\u2019s version of what happened. Walt related that he was driving his pickup on Highway 88 following Russell\u2019s truck when Russell crossed into Colson\u2019s lane in an attempt to turn left onto Division Street. Jeter was a passenger in Walt\u2019s truck, and he corroborated Walt\u2019s version of what transpired. Jeter also testified that it appeared Russell never saw Colson\u2019s vehicle. Russell\u2019s own expert, Joel Hicks, testified that there were more points of impact in Colson\u2019s lane of travel than in Russell\u2019s, that it was possible the collision occurred in Colson\u2019s lane and that it was physically possible for the Russell vehicle to have crossed the highway center line and caused the accident. Hicks further stated that examination of Russell\u2019s truck showed the steering wheel was \u201cturned half a revolution to the left,\u201d thus supporting Colson\u2019s version of what happened.\nAlthough Russell argues his cross examination of Walt and Jeter resulted in raising some questions as to whether they remembered correctly the events surrounding the accident, these two witnesses\u2019 testimony largely conformed to and supported Col-son\u2019s version. And, while Russell\u2019s expert rejected Colson\u2019s story that Russell\u2019s vehicle was turning left when the accident happened, there was ample evidence, including the expert\u2019s own testimony, to show Russell did negligently turn left into Colson\u2019s lane. This court has stated that it is the sole province of the jury to determine not merely the credibility of the witnesses, but the weight and value of their testimony. Gilbert v. Shine, 314 Ark. 486, 863 S.W.2d 314 (1993).\nIn the present case, Russell failed to show there was no rational basis for the jury\u2019s verdict. Nor, in fact, did he show the court erred in denying his new trial motion, since there was clearly substantial evidence to support the verdict rendered in Colson\u2019s behalf.\nIn conclusion, we briefly note that Russell raises an argument that because the jury deliberated only twenty-five minutes and took only one exhibit with it, the trial appeared unfair and thus JNOV was warranted for this reason alone. We dispose of this argument by stating that Russell fails to provide any supporting legal authority or convincing argument that a minimum time is required for jury deliberation or that a short deliberation in itself is grounds for the granting of a motion for JNOV or new trial.\nAffirmed.\nCORBIN, J., not participating.\nOther Russells were parties, but for clarity purposes, we refer only to John Russell. John Russell\u2019s wife, Cleophus Russell, was a passenger at the time of the accident. Her estate was made a party to this suit, and it alleged Cleophus\u2019s death was caused by Colson\u2019s negligence. Mr. Russell\u2019s daughter, Debbar, made a claim for property damage. Emmett Colson, Thomas\u2019s father, was also sued by John Russell. Emmett was alleged to be the owner of the pickup driven by Thomas and alleged to have been negligent in giving Thomas possession and control of the pickup. Emmett was ultimately dismissed from the suit on a directed verdict.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom GLAZE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Christopher C. Mercer, for appellants.",
      "Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoon, Ltd., by: David M. Fuqua, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Henry RUSSELL, Debar Russell, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Cleophus Russell, Deceased v. Thomas COLSON\n95-1147\n928 S.W.2d 794\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 30, 1996\n[Petition for rehearing denied November 4, 1996.]\nChristopher C. Mercer, for appellants.\nHilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoon, Ltd., by: David M. Fuqua, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0112-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 149
}