Court Opinion

ID: 9774584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:25:20.315655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:10.869773
License: Public Domain

JohN A. FoglemaN, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result but not all the bases for reaching it nor in those holdings overruling certain assignments of error. I would reverse on Points I, 11(1), 11(2), 11(4), 11(5) and 11(10). I would also reverse on failure to direct a verdict for appellant Hankins. On Point 11(1) I think the proper distinction is made in Railway Company v. Harrell, 58 Ark. 454, 25 S. W. 117. Such evidence is admissible only to show use of defective machinery and equipment and the knowledge of such use by the owner or operator, when it is impossible or impracticable to obtain direct proof of the particular fact. The evidence was not offered for this purpose and there was other evidence actually used to show that this was an abnormally dangerous crossing. With the proper foundation it might be used to show that machinery or appliances were defective and that the operator had knowledge thereof. On Point 11(2) I do not think there was any jury view that required explanation, nor do I think we should assume that the jury was familiar with the conditions at the time of trial. After witnesses testified as to conditions on a later date, it was certainly proper to show the differences between conditions existing on the two dates. It was also proper to show which of the highway signs shown in pictures of the crossing were not in place at the time of the collision.