Court Opinion

ID: 7811574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:13:26.722747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:29.204181
License: Public Domain

Hart, J. (after stating the facts). The only ground urged for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict. In this contention we think counsel 'are correct. The statutory presumption of negligence arising from the killing of the hull by the operation of the train was overcome by the evidence of the fireman and the conductor. It may be stated in this connection that the engineer was dead at the time of the trial. According’ to the testimony of the fireman, the bull was killed by the front steps of the third coach striking him after the engine had passed by. The fireman was looking back to see if any signals should be given him to stop at the station. It appears that the bull had his head chained to his front foot. The fireman saw the bull struck by the steps of the coach and killed. He could not have stopped the train after lie first saw it. His testimony is consistent in itself and not contradicted by any other testimony in the case. In fact, it is corroborated by that of the conductor, who testified that he discovered that the coach in question was broken and had blood and hair on it after the train had passed the station. The public interest requires that trains be run on time and that railroads dispatch their business promptly. Under the circumstances it was not necessary to stop the train or to slacken its speed. The case falls within the rule announced in St. L. I. M. & So. Ry. Co. v. Landers, 67 Ark. 514, and Lane v. Kansas City Sou. Ry. Co., 78 Ark. 234. It follows that the court erred in not directing a verdict for appellant, and for that error the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.