Smith v. R. A. Brooks Trucking Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Smith v. R. A. Brooks Trucking Co.

660 S.W.2d 1, 280 Ark. 510, 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1553

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 7, 1983

Docket83-152

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 660 S.W.2d 1 (Smith v. R. A. Brooks Trucking Co.) 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

Smith v. R. A. Brooks Trucking Co., 660 S.W.2d 1, 280 Ark. 510, 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1553 (Ark. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

The trial court, sitting as trier of fact, awarded appellee, R. A. Brooks Trucking Company, $13,047.00 for damages to its vehicle resulting from the negligence of appellant, Lewis A. Smith, in allowing his cattle, two bulls, to run free on the highway. On appeal two points are argued for reversal: (1) that the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) that the award of damages was based upon incompetent evidence.

There was sufficient evidence of appellant’s negligence to support the verdict. The owner of livestock is liable when damage results from his intentionally or negligently permitting animals to be at large. Favre v. Medlock, 212 Ark. 911, 208 S.W.2d 439 (1948). On appeal we will not reverse the trial court’s finding unless it is clearly erroneous. ARCP, Rule 52.

Evidence supporting the finding of the trial court was testimony of appellant’s wife that, upon being notified one bull was out, she ran it back towards the pasture but was never sure she had run the animal into the fenced area. Mrs. Smith also testified that she and her brother-in-law looked for the bull to make sure that it laad gone inside the pasture but never found it; even so,/ner husband sent her home because “it was so bad down there that he wanted me to get out of [those] woods.” There was also testimony that Mrs. Smith knew for more than eight hours prior to the collision of appellee’s vehicle that at least one of the bulls was running loose. We cannot say that the trial court erred in finding substantial evidence to support his finding of negligence.

Appellant’s argument that the award of damages was based upon incompetent evidence is precluded by the fact that he failed to obj ect to the evidence in the lower court. We have consistently held that we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Sun Gas Liquids Co. v. Helena Nat’l Bank, 276 Ark. 173, 633 S.W.2d 38 (1982).

Affirmed.

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

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

The trial court, sitting as trier of fact, awarded appellee, R. A. Brooks Trucking Company, $13,047.00 for damages to its vehicle resulting from the negligence of appellant, Lewis A. Smith, in allowing his cattle, two bulls, to run free on the highway. On appeal two points are argued for reversal: (1) that the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) that the award of damages was based upon incompetent evidence.

There was sufficient evidence of appellant’s negligence to support the verdict. The owner of livestock is liable when damage results from his intentionally or negligently permitting animals to be at large. Favre v. Medlock, 212 Ark. 911, 208 S.W.2d 439 (1948). On appeal we will not reverse the trial court’s finding unless it is clearly erroneous. ARCP, Rule 52.

Evidence supporting the finding of the trial court was testimony of appellant’s wife that, upon being notified one bull was out, she ran it back towards the pasture but was never sure she had run the animal into the fenced area. Mrs. Smith also testified that she and her brother-in-law looked for the bull to make sure that it laad gone inside the pasture but never found it; even so,/ner husband sent her home because “it was so bad down there that he wanted me to get out of [those] woods.” There was also testimony that Mrs. Smith knew for more than eight hours prior to the collision of appellee’s vehicle that at least one of the bulls was running loose. We cannot say that the trial court erred in finding substantial evidence to support his finding of negligence.

Appellant’s argument that the award of damages was based upon incompetent evidence is precluded by the fact that he failed to obj ect to the evidence in the lower court. We have consistently held that we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Sun Gas Liquids Co. v. Helena Nat’l Bank, 276 Ark. 173, 633 S.W.2d 38 (1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 S.W.2d 1, 280 Ark. 510, 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-r-a-brooks-trucking-co-ark-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack