Railway Co. v. Mayes

24 S.W. 1076, 58 Ark. 397, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 108
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided January 27, 1894·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Wood J.,

(after stating the facts). It is not negligence “per se ” to jump from a moving train. But where one, compos mentis, under no circumstances of emergency or constraint, takes “a leap in the dark” 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.

The learned circuit judge, upon appellee’s own statement and the undisputed facts, might very properly have directed a verdict for appellant.

Reversed and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Railway Co. v. Mayes, 24 S.W. 1076, 58 Ark. 397, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 108 (Ark. 1894).

24 S.W. 1076 (Railway Co. v. Mayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Mallott
6 S.W.2d 432 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)