Case Name: St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Adams
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1905-02-25
Citations: 74 Ark. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Adams.
Judges: George M. ChapeiNE, Judge.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 326–335

Head Matter:
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Adams.
Opinion delivered February 25, 1905.
1. EvidEncb — personal injuries — size oe family. — In an action for personal injuries, evidence as to the size of plaintiff’s family is incompetent, as it does not tend to show his earning capacity, but rather the amount of his expenses; and it is prejudicial, as calculated to arouse the sympathies of the jury. (Page 328.)
2. Remittitur — excessive damages. — Where plaintiff's right to recover either on contract or in tort is clear, and has been established by the verdict of a jury, and where the errors committed in the trial do not affect the question whether defendant is liable or not, but go only to the enhancement of the amount of the verdict, so that the court is not able to say that the verdict is not excessive, the court may, in its discretion,, name a sum which is clearly not excessive, and allow the plaintiff, if he chooses, to remit the residue. (Page 329.)
Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court.
George M. ChapeiNE, Judge.
Reversed.
Dodge & Johnson, for appellant.
The plaintiff failed to look and listen, and was guilty of contributory negligence. 65 Ark. 235; 54 Ark. 431; 56 Ark. 439; 62 Ark. 158; Elliott, Railroads, § 1166; 61 Ark. 217; 30 Oh. St. 627; Beach, Con. Neg. § 449; Thomp. Neg. 426, 1237; 29 Fed. 489; Shearman & R. Neg. § 56; 57 Fed. 921.; 48 Ark. 106; 7 Vroom, 531; 95 U. S. 697; 61 .Ark. 620; 62 Ark. 238, 253; 64 Ark. 332, 364; 65 Ark. 429. The proof fails to establish negligence on the part of the appellant, and it was error to admit testimony ás to an alleged habit of negligence. 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 13; 91 U. S. 454; 121 Mo. 340; 142 Mo. 645; 52 Fed. 711; 144 U. S. 207; 48 N. W. 779; 73 N. Y. 468; 150 Mass. 386. The court erred in permitting plaintiff to testify as to the size of the family he had to support. 40 N. W. 657; 102 U. S. 451; 65.Hl. 160; 74 Ill. 343. The admission of the Carlisle tables in evidence was error.' 3 Elliott, Railroads, § 1378; 36 Ill. App. 564; 84 Ga. 37. The instructions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 did not state the law. 46 Ark; 513; 54 Ark. 431; 65 Ark. 260.
T. J. Oliphint, for appellee.
The instructions are in the language of the statute and correct. 53 Ark. 201; Sand. & H. Dig. § § 6196, 6207; 63 Ark. 177; 64 Ark. 216; 66 Ark. 46; 62 Ark. 182; 57 Ark. 192.

Opinion:
Battee, -J.
T. R. Adams brought this action against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages caused by the negligence of the defendant. He alleged in his complaint that on the 7th day of March, 1900, he was traveling from his home toward Little Rock in a wagon drawn'1 by two mules and loaded with country produce; that it was dark, about eight or nine o'clock, when he approached the crossing of the public road by the defendant's railway; that when near the track he stopped, and looked, and listened, and, seeing no approaching train, moved on the crossing, and when his wagon was upon the track, a -train of the defendant's, consisting of an engine and box car, the latter being in front of the engine with no light or signal on the same, suddenly came upon him, and struck his wagon, knocked it off the track, overturned it, and threw him on the ground, bruising and greatly injuring him.
The defendant answered, and denied all the allegations in the complaint, and alleged that plaintiff's injuries were caused by his own contributory negligence.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $2,000, and the defendant appealed.
The evidence adduced at the trial showed that the appellee, traveling in a wagon drawn by mules, in the nighttime, about eight or nine o'clock, drove his wagon upon appellant's railway, where it crosses the public road, upon which he was traveling, and that a train of the appellant, consisting of an engine and three or four box cars, the latter in front of the former, the engine pushing the cars, struck the wagon, overturned it, and injured the appellee. The evidence tended to show that no signals of the approach of the train were given at the time of this collision, and that no lookout for persons or animals in front of the same was kept, and no lights on the foremost car were exhibited; and that the injury received impaired his. earning capacity.
In the course of this trial appellee asked this question: "How much family have you had to support?" to which appellant objected; its objection was overruled; and it excepted. He, appellee, being the witness, answered: "From ten to twelve. I have had twelve children." He was further asked: "How much help did you have from those children in making crops?" He answered, "I haven't had a great deal until this year. I have a boy 16 years old, and this boy I have here — they are all the boys I have big enough." The question and answer as to size of his family and the number of his children were inadmissible and prejudicial. This evidence did not tend to show an increase of his earning capacity, but of his expenses. As to this evidence,we say, as the court said of similar evidence in Pennsylvania Company v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 460: "The manifest object of its introduction was to inform the jury that the plaintiff had infant children dependent upon him for support, and, consequently, that his injuries involved the comfort of his family. This proof, in connection with the impairment of his ability to earn money, was well calculated to arouse the sympathies of the jury, and to enhance the damages beyond the amount which the law permitted; that is, beyond what was, under all the circumstances, a fair and just compensation to the person suing for the injuries received by him. How far the assessment of damages was controlled by this evidence as to the plaintiff's family it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty; but the reasonable presumption is that it had some influence upon the verdict." And we add, whatever may have been the object of its introduction, the effect was the same, and prejudicial. See also Kreuziger v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.), 40 N. W. Rep. 657, 659, and cases cited.
Opinion delivered March 18, 1905.
As the judgment will be reversed, we make no comment upon the sufficiency of the evidence. The opinion heretofore delivered in this case is hereby withdrawn.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.