Court Opinion

ID: 9864365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 12:54:13.532987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:37.927617
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing. Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice. In the petition for rehearing, appellant argues three points, which we now list and discuss. 1. Appellant says that, in giving “a brief review of some of the evidence” in topic 11(b) of the opinion, we omitted vital facts, the recital of which — according to appellant — would demonstrate the error of our holding. All the evidence that appellant wants recited bears on the question of whether young Diffee was guilty of contributory negligence. We held that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury; and the addition of the several pages of testimony as desired by the appellant would only serve to reinforce our conclusion, that the negligence question was for the jury. 2. Appellant says that we failed to cite and apply the case of Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Howard, 204 Ark. 253, 161 S. W. 2d 759. We did not cite that case for two reasons: first, it was decided under our comparative negligence statute (% 11153, Pope’s Digest), and that statute is not applicable in this case, as we pointed out in the opening sentence of Topic II of our opinion; and, secondly, in Mo. Pac. v. Howard, supra, this court held as a matter of law that the negligence of the driver of the car exceeded the alleged negligence of the railroad company. In the case at bar we reached the conclusion that the evidence as to negligence and contributory negligence was substantial; and, hence, presented a question of fact for the jury. 3. Appellant objects to the citation and quotation from the volume, “The Belation Between Injury and Disease” by Beed and Emerson. Appellant says that no witness or lawyer mentioned the book, and it was not before the jury, and therefore this'-court should not have cited or quoted from the book. This volume has been in our Supreme Court Library since November, 1938. It is in the section of books dealing with medical jurisprudence, a subject discussed by the appellant. We regard the book as standard, and of general interest. We quoted from it just as we would have quoted from any other reference book in our library, and just as we did quote from the reported case of Eicholz v. Niagara Falls Hydraulic P. & Mfg. Co., 68 App. Div. 441, 73 N. Y. S. 842. Tbe evidence showed that young Diffee suffered a severe shock, and was unconscious from the time of the injury until after he reached the hospital in Fort Smith. This evidence made entirely appropriate quotation from the Eeed and Emerson volume. The petition for rehearing is denied.