{
  "id": 1329152,
  "name": "Railway Company v. Mayes",
  "name_abbreviation": "Railway Co. v. Mayes",
  "decision_date": "1894-01-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "399",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ark. 397"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "26 Ind. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1442198
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/26/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890500
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0423-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890495
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N. Y. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S. W. Rep. 1099",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ga. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Pa. St. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        974007
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/23/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Mo. App. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1324614
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/57/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892020
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/45/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1324614
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/57/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892020
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/45/0256-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 3204,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.678199046853274e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35745771278557165
    },
    "sha256": "a5fe9984035f254382e152885d0d57e883a38f55133370e964329777ad53a267",
    "simhash": "1:e8bc61831256516d",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:41:42.064450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Railway Company v. Mayes."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood J.,\n(after stating the facts). It is not negligence \u201cper se \u201d to jump from a moving train. But where one, compos mentis, under no circumstances of emergency or constraint, takes \u201ca leap in the dark\u201d from a train moving at the rate shown in this case, his conduct is reckless and foolhardy. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rosenberry, 45 Ark. 256 ; Catlett v. Railway Company, 57 Ark. 461.\nThe learned circuit judge, upon appellee\u2019s own statement and the undisputed facts, might very properly have directed a verdict for appellant.\nReversed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace Pratt and Olden & Orr for appellant.",
      "Sam H. Davidson for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Railway Company v. Mayes.\nOpinion delivered January 27, 1894.\nContributory negligence \u2014 Ahghting from moving train.\nA passenger of sound mind who, under no emergency or constraint, jumps off in the dark at his station from a train moving at a rate not less than twelve miles per hour cannot recover for his resulting injuries.\nAppeal from Sharp Circuit Court.\nJohn B. McCalRB, Judge.\nNed Mayes brought this action against the Kansas City, Port Scott & Memphis Railroad Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. The facts are stated by the court as follows :\nAppellee sought to recover of appellant $1500 damages, caused, he says, by the negligence of its employees in refusing and failing to stop its train at appellee\u2019s destination, a station on appellant\u2019s road, and by slowing up at the platform, thus inducing appellee to alight from the train while it was moving, causing him to receive severe injuries. Appellee was a passenger. Appellant denies, and says whatever injuries appellee received were the result of his own negligence. Appellee testified \u201cthat the train whistled about half a mile from depot, he heard the air brake go on, the train slowed up to about twelve miles per hour, he jumped off, and the frost on platform caused him to slip,\u201d etc.\nOne of his companions (who attempted to get off the same way, and who, marvelously, escaped unhurt) says, \u201cthe rapid motion of the train when I jumped sent me spinning through the air like a wheel.\" The train was due at 7:27 A. M., and a witness said it was not light yet, \u201ckind of dark.\u201d\nThe testimony of all the witnesses shows that the train was moving between twelve and eighteen miles per hour ; none place the speed below twelve, and one as high as eighteen. The verdict and judgment were for $250.00.\nWallace Pratt and Olden & Orr for appellant.\nThere was an entire failure of proof of the material allegations of the complaint. On the plaintiff\u2019s own testimony, the cause should be reversed. Rosenberry v. j Ry. Co. 45 Ark. 256; Catlett v. Ry. Co. 57 Ark. 461 ; 43 Mo. App. 353 ; 23 Pa. St. 147; 9 La. An. 441; 41 .id. 795 ; 45 Ga. 289; 26 111. 373 ; 2 Wood, Ry. Law, 1126; Thomps. on Carriers, 267. No recovery can be had, if the cars were in such motion as to render it obviously dangerous for a person to attempt to leave them. Cases supra. 14 S. W. Rep. 1099 ; 49 N. Y. 44.\nSam H. Davidson for appellee.\nIt was a question for the jury to determine whether the danger was obvious to a reasonable man, and thereby to judge whether or not he was negligent under the circumstances. 46 Ark. 438. See also 46 Ark. 423, 437 ; 54 id. 29 ; 26 Ind. 459 ; 2 Wood, Ry. Raw, 1131."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 419
}