Court Opinion

ID: 9774627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:27:21.973601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:11.985350
License: Public Domain

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice (dissenting). I do not agree with the majority view. In addition to the rule requiring that appelant Johnny Hunt’s testimony be considered as disputed and controverted, there is a stronger rule applicable to this case which is set out in Penny v. Gulf Refining Co., 217 Ark. 805, 233 S. W. 2d 372, as follows: “A directed verdict for the defendant is proper only when there is no substantial evidence from which the jurors as reasonable men could possibly find the issues for the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the trial judge must give to the plaintiff’s evidence its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences that may sensibly be deduced from it, and may grant the motion only if the evidence viewed in that light would be so insubstantial as to require him to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff should such a verdict be returned bv the jury.” Viewing the evidence according to the rules of this court, I find in appellant’s own abstract the following testimony of a disinterested witness: “My name is John Newton White and I live approximately 3% miles east of Hoxie on Highway 63. I went to the scene of the accident on Highway 63 last December 24th. 1 was concerned for fear my daughter was in it. I was in bed, but was awake, waiting on my daughter to get home. She should have been in and I was concerned about her. The road was slick at the time, not real bad but dangerous. About dark that night I had been out seeing about the stock and it had been raining and getting freezing weather. I heard the crash, looked out the window and saw the fire. I had heard a car pass my house before making a noise like it had a leaky muffler. I just heard one crash. I got up and called the ambulance and police and then walked to the scene. I had to walk careful to keep from sliding.” This witness whose home is located in dose proximity to the crash testified positively that he heard only one crash. Certainly this is substantial evidence from which the jury could have found that this was a simultaneous collision. From the severity of the collision with appellant’s truck as indicated by the physical facts as established by the testimony and photographs in the record, a jury could have found that appellant’s truck contributed to causing the death of Mrs. Smith. . It is settled law that once a plaintiff has shown a defendant’s negligence concurred with the negligence of another in producing an injury he is entitled to recover unless the defendant shows that the negligence of the other party would'have produced the injury independently of his own negligence. Oviatt v. Garretson, 205 Ark. 792, 171 S. W. 2d 287; Lydon v. Dean, 222 Ark. 367, 260 S. W. 2d 465; 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 63, p. 715. In my view appellant completely failed to make such a showing. Was there any substantial evidence from which reasonable men could possibly have found that appellant was negligent? The jury heard the testimony of appellant Johnny Hunt who admitted to making the 155-mile trip from Little Rock to Jonesboro while driving a huge transport truck on this rainy night of the accident in less than four hours and after making business stops at Searcy and Newport, and after taking more than 30 minutes to eat a steak in Newport. The jury further heard the evidence developed at trial which showed that Johnny Hunt, driver of the Superior truck, gave a written and signed statement a few hours after the wreck to the manager of the Superior Forwarding Company terminal at Jonesboro and to the insurance adjustor for Superior which stated that the vehicle proceeding down the highway toward Hoxie in front of him was occupied by two persons and that the vehicle meeting them was a convertible. Five days after the accident when he was in Little Rock, the evidence showed Hunt gave another written and signed statement, with the consent of his employer, to a representative for the Spurlock estate and within that statement again stated that the car he had been following was a Chevrolet hardtop and that the vehicle meeting him was a Chevrolet convertible. Hunt testified at the trial he really didn’t know which vehicle was in front of him and which vehicle he was meeting. In addition to this impeachment the jury was asked by appellants to believe that appellant could accurately describe the speed and control of an oncoming vehicle at a considerable distance when he couldn’t testify on the witness stand as to which car he had been following. This is the same witness who after suffering comparatively slight injuries admittedly failed to check on the welfare of the occupants of the other vehicles, one of which apparently burned to death. It is true that Johnny Hunt was the only surviving eye witness to this collision but as stated above his testimony is disputed as a matter of law and from the verdict rendered by the jury it is evident that they chose not to believe him as a matter of fact, which of course they had a perfect right to do. On appeal this court in the majority opinion chooses to disagree with the jury and relies almost completely for its finding of no substanial evidence upon the testimony of Hunt. Wliat was the evidence as to the weather conditions ? The witness John Newton White testified as set out above concerning the weather conditions both before and after the collision. Johnny Hunt testified that he noticed ice on the road immediately after he got out of his truck. Witness John W. Troutt, Jr., City Editor and photographer for the Jonesboro Evening Sun, testified that he arrived at the scene not later than 1:30 A.M., which was not more than 30 minutes after the wreck had occurred, and that as he was driving west from Jonesboro to the scene of the wreck he encountered ice at the town of Sedgwick on west to where the wreck occurred. He also testified that he slowed his speed down considerably after going Avest from SedgAvick. Witness Robert F. Warden testified that he arrived at the scene at about 1:10 A.M., which Avould have been not more than 15 minutes after the wreck, and that in going to the scene he traveled the highway on Avhich the wreck occurred and that the highway Avas icy and very slick. Witness Charles White, a fireman from Walnut Ridge, testified that the roads were icy and very slick. Witness Alvin Taylor testified that he was the first motorist to arrive on the east side of the scene of the accident and that he arrived there some time between 12:00 and 1:00 A.M. and that when he got out of his car he noticed that there was ice on the highway. Appellant admitted he was driving his heavy tractor and trailer at a speed of 50 miles per hour. It is my view that reasonable minds could differ as to whether 50 miles per hour was an excessive speed for a big tractor and trailer to have been driven on an icy highway at night. Appellaht admitted that he was following the automobile in front of him at a speed of 50 miles an hour. He estimated the speed of the preceding automobile to be 40 miles per hour. He said he was following within 80 to 100 feet of the vehicle in front of him. Such a distance is barely more than the combined length of his tractor and trailer. His trailer alone was 40 feet in length. He admitted that he ordinarily would not follow another vehicle any closer than three to four hundred feet. However, he tried to justify the fact that he was within 80 to 100 feet of the vehicle in front of him by stating that he had overtaken the vehicle in front of him and started to pass but saw another automobile approaching from the opposite direction at a distance of one mile or more away. "When he saw the approaching automobile, he discontinued his effort to pass. Although he realized that the approaching automobile was traveling at a terrifically high rate of speed when he first saw it a mile or more away, and, nevertheless, he remained within 80 to 100 feet behind the car in front of him. Even though he felt that three to four hundred feet was a safe distance for him to follow another vehicle, he did not adjust his speed so as to get a safe distance back, in spite of the fact that he knew he was going to meet a vehicle which he described as traveling at a terrifically excessive rate of speed. Once he abandoned his effort to pass, he could not escape the duty imposed upon him by Sec. 75-614 of the Arkansas Statutes Annotated, which provides that a driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another closer than is reasonable and prudent, particularly in view of the fact that he had more than ample time to get a prudent distance back. A reasonable and prudent distance for appellant Johnny Hunt to follow another vehicle would certainly be more than 80 to 100 feet and under the existing circumstances, a jury might well find that a prudent distance would be even more than the three to four hundred feet which he testified he ordinarily considered to be a safe distance for him to follow another vehicle. There was further evidence relative to Hunt’s driving, such as failure to swerve his vehicle and failure to apply brakes, from which a jury could have found that Hunt was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to exercise ordinary care. From the whole case it is my view that appellee need not have proved by direct evidence that Mrs. Smith’s death was caused by the sole negligence of Johnny Hunt. I believe it is sufficient if the facts proved are of such a nature, and are so connected and related to each other, that the conclusion therefrom may be fairly inferred. In the case of Biddle v. Jacobs, 116 Ark. 82, 172 S. W. 258, this court in ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence as to whether defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the deceased’s death, said: “In actions for damages on account of negligence, plaintiff is bound to prove, not only the negligence, but that it was the cause of the damage. This causal connection must be proved by evidence as a fact, and not be left to mere speculation and conjecture. The rule does not require, however, that there must be direct proof of the fact itself. This would often be impossible. It will be sufficient if the facts proved are of such a nature, and are so connected and related to each other that the conclusion therefrom may be fairly inferred.” [Emphasis mine.] For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.