Court Opinion

ID: 9863158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:08:22.295605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:45.854244
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddiN, Associate Justice (concurring). I concur in the result reached in this case — i. e., that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. But the majority opinion contains this language near the conclusion: “It was Robert’s duty as a student to comply with the reasonable directions of his coach. It cannot be said that, in the circumstances shown here, Robert was the guest of the coach within the meaning of our guest statute. ’ ’ The only thing this Court was asked to do was tu hold that the Trial Court was wrong in declaring Robert Whit-tecar to be a guest. But the majority has swung to the other extreme and has stated that, as a matter of law— under the facts here — Robert Whittecar was not a guest. I think that, even under the facts here, it was a question for the jury to decide as to whether Robert Whittecar was a guest or a mere occupant-under-orders in the car. Even where the evidence is undisputed, inferences and conclusions to be drawn from such evidence are still matters for the jury. We have many times so declared. In Grand Lodge v. Banister, 80 Ark. 190, 96 S. W. 742, we said : “. . . for if the facts are such that men of reasonable intelligence may honestly draw therefrom different conclusions on the question in dispute, then they were properly submitted to the jury for determination. Judges should not, under that state of the case, substitute their judgment for that of the jury. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. Martin, 61 Ark. 549.” A score of cases on the rule, that it is for the jury to draw the inferences from the evidence, are abstracted and quoted in West’s Arkansas Digest, “Trial,” Key No. 142. So here, I conclude that the status of Robert Whitte-car is a question for the jury to decide. Of course, on a new trial, the facts may be somewhat different from those in the present record and the case may be submitted to the jury. My only purpose in registering this concurring opinion is to continue to express my view that it is for the jury to draw inferences from the evidence.