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