Riley v. Motor Express, Inc.

102 S.W.2d 850, 193 Ark. 780, 1937 Ark. LEXIS 73
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 8, 1937
Docket4-4545
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 S.W.2d 850 (Riley v. Motor Express, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Riley v. Motor Express, Inc., 102 S.W.2d 850, 193 Ark. 780, 1937 Ark. LEXIS 73 (Ark. 1937).

Opinion

Grieein Smith, O. J.

Appellants sued Motor Express, Inc., for $30,435, and a jury found for the defendant. It is alleged that appellee’s driver negligently parked and left a truck and trailer on the highway, and that W. Mason Moore, driving a Chevrolet car, ran into the rear of the trailer and was killed. Appellants are Pat H. Biley, C. G. Moore and Maggie Moore. Biley, as administrator, asks $15,000 as compensation for the death of his intestate and $435 to cover damages to the car. Mr. and Mrs. Moore, father and mother of Mason Moore, asked $15,000 to compensate for loss of the companionship of their son, and for the support he had promised.

The case is being affirmed because there should have-been a directed verdict for the defendant.

Mason Moore was killed on the morning of November- 18, 1935, on the Little Bock-Pine Bluff highway. Appellee’s agent, H. C. McKenzie, left Little Bock at five o’clock, driving a loaded truck, to which a trailer was attached. When approximately three miles from Pine Bluff trouble developed from a “stripped” bearing, and McKenzie coasted to a stop. It is alleged in the complaint that the accident happened about 6:30 a. m.

The administrator testified: “On the morning of the 18th I arose about 6:15. The atmospheric condition was foggy. I got to the scene of the accident about an hour and a half after it occurred, and it was still foggy. The truck and trailer were on the side of the highway on the concrete. The road was 18 feet wide. They had not been moved. Truck was on south side of concrete and wheels of the truck were not on the shoulder. The north lane of the road was clear. I do not know what the conditions ’ were at the scene of the accident at 6:30. The road at the scene of the accident runs kind of southeast and northwest. East the road is straight between a quarter and a half mile, and west the road is straight approximately a quarter of a mile. ”

J. W. Bingham, Jr., an employee of the State Highway Department, testified for plaintiff that the paving is twenty feet wide where the wreck occurred, with a five-foot shoulder on each side. “It was 175 feet from the truck to a place pointed out to me as being the place where a flare was set in the center of road at rear of truck. ’ ’

M. C. Hollis lives at Pine Bluff, and, on the morning of November 18, left Pine Bluff with Fred Stalcup for Little Rock. “I left about six o’clock or a little after. It was reasonably dark, but day was breaking and I had lights burning1 on my car. I was on the front seat of the car with Mr. Stalcup, who was driving. As we were driving up the road Stalcup saw lights on a car coming and then saw the truck parked on the side of the road. We were proceeding slowly. As we approached the parked truck, within distance from witness chair to courtroom door, the impact occurred. Stalcup had pulled his car over, practically off the concrete, to avoid any possible collision. The first I knew the boy (Moore) came down the road. He evidently saw the flare and turned over on one side of the road to pass it, and the next instant he hit the. back end of that truck. His body came out of the car and fell right in front of our car. * * # His face was clear as could be and there wasn’t a mark on it, or any indication of any dissipation — no odor or signs of intoxication. There were no lights on the front or rear of the truck, and no flare was burning east of the truck. A flare was burning at the rear of the truck, some 60 or 75 steps from the back end of the truck. The lights on'Moore’s car were on the north side of the road when he passed around the rear flare. As Moore passed the flare, he evidently saw the lights on our car and immediately turned back to the south side of the road and came into contact with the parked truck. The truck was headed toward Pine Bluff, and I saw it approximately 100 yards before I reached it. Our car stopped some 25 feet before reaching the truck, and Moore’s body fell about ten feet in front of our car.”

Fred Stalcup testified in substance as follows: “I was with Mr. Hollis on the morning of the 18th of November. After I got out of my car I saw a flare burning some 40 or 50 yards beyond tbe car toward Little Rock, behind the truck. When we approached to within 30 or 40 yards of the truck I saw Moore’s car coming, and also saw a dim outline of the truck. When we came to within 20 or 30 yards of the car I saw Moore turn around the flare and then turn back behind the truck, and I saw that he was going to hit the truck. Moore was on my side of the road when he passed the flare, and turned back on his (right hand) side of the road, and the impact with the truck occurred. There were no lights on the front or rear of the truck, and no one was there with it. Part of the truck was on the shoulder of the road and part was on the concrete. There wasn’t sufficient room north of the truck for two cars to pass. I stopped my car eight or ten feet before reaching the truck and pulled off on the shoulder so that the oncoming driver could pass in the event he attempted to do so. The right hand rear corner on the truck was on the concrete. I couldn’t tell how fast Moore was coming, but as he passed the flare, as a mere guess, I would say he was traveling at an ordinary rate of speed, 35 miles an hour. ’ ’

The most that can be said in favor of appellants’ testimony is that the driver parked in such manner as to leave the north side of the highway entirely clear; that it was about daylight and visibility was not good, and that instead of keeping the truck lights burning, a flare was placed 175 feet to the rear of the truck and trailer.

It is contended that the distance the flare was placed to the rear of the truck is evidence of negligence, and it is pointed out that Moore’s acts of turning to his left around the flare, and then cutting- back to the right, show that he was misled.

Crawford’s Digest of Arkansas Decisions contains many citations wherein negligence is defined. In Bizzell v. Booker, 16 Ark. 308, it was said that “Negligence * * * depends upon the circumstances surrounding the party at the time.” In St. Louis I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hecht, this language is found: “Negligence, in a legal sense, is no more nor less than this, the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury-” In Evans v. Blytheville, L. & A. S. R. Co., 147 Ark. 28, 227 S. W. 257, the court said that “The degree of care must always be measured by the exigencies of the particular case.” As expressed in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Shipp, 174 Ark. 130, 297 S. W. 856, “Negligence is doing something a person of ordinary prudence would not do, or failure to do something that persons of ordinary prudence would do, under the circumstances.” Still later (St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Burns, 186 Ark. 921, 56 S. W. (2d) 1027) it was said that “The degree of care required of a person is only to provide against such dangers as ought to be foreseen under attending circumstances. ’ ’

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

Related

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bryan
112 S.W.2d 641 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 S.W.2d 850, 193 Ark. 780, 1937 Ark. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-motor-express-inc-ark-1937.