From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Missouri Pac. Rr. v. Biddle

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Oct 5, 1987
293 Ark. 142 (Ark. 1987)

Summary

correcting factual error

Summary of this case from Lusby v. Union Pacific R. Co.

Opinion


737 S.W.2d 625 (Ark. 1987) 293 Ark. 142 MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Randall W. BIDDLE et ux., Appellees. No. 86-299. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 5, 1987.

         Herschel H. Friday, Wm. H. Sutton, Little Rock, for appellant.

        Charles M. Walker, John Robert Graves, Hope, for appellees.

        HICKMAN, Justice.

        A rehearing is granted because [293 Ark. 148-B] we made a mistake regarding the facts in our decision of July 20, 1987. 293 Ark. 142, 732 S.W.2d 473.

        We said: "The appellee however, testified he did not hear a bell or a whistle ..." (Italics supplied.) The record reflects this:

Q. Did you ever hear a train whistle on that day?

A. No sir. (Italics supplied.)

        Appellee never testified that he did not hear a bell. The question of whether the railroad was negligent in violating Ark.Stat.Ann. § 73-716 (Repl.1979) was submitted to the jury. The statute provides:

        A bell of at least thirty pounds weight, or a steam whistle, shall be placed on each locomotive or engine, and shall be rung or whistled at the distance of at least eighty rods from the place where the said road shall cross any other road or street, and be kept ringing or whistling until it shall have crossed said road or street, under a penalty of two hundred dollars [$200.00] for every neglect, to be paid by the corporation owning the railroad, one-half [ 1/2] thereof to go to the informer and the other half [ 1/2] to the county; and the corporation shall also be liable for all damages which shall be sustained by any person by reason of such neglect.

        The statutory duty is to sound a bell or whistle. In the absence of any testimony offered by the appellees that a bell was not sounded, the matter should not have gone to the jury. Compliance with the statute was the sole remaining issue of liability. Since the appellees did not establish a case of negligence, the motion for directed verdict should have been granted.

        Reversed and dismissed.

        HAYS, J., would deny.

        GLAZE, J., concurs.


Summaries of

Missouri Pac. Rr. v. Biddle

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Oct 5, 1987
293 Ark. 142 (Ark. 1987)

correcting factual error

Summary of this case from Lusby v. Union Pacific R. Co.

In Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. Biddle, 293 Ark. 142, 732 S.W.2d 473 (1987), we reviewed most of our abnormally dangerous crossing cases and adopted a totality of the circumstances standard for determining when a crossing is abnormally dangerous and when warning devices should be installed, but in this case warnings already had been installed.

Summary of this case from Northland Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R
Case details for

Missouri Pac. Rr. v. Biddle

Case Details

Full title:MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. Randall W. BIDDLE and Cheryl Ann BIDDLE…

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Oct 5, 1987

Citations

293 Ark. 142 (Ark. 1987)
293 Ark. 142
732 S.W.2d 473

Citing Cases

Missouri R.R. v. Mackey

There was no testimony or evidence introduced to indicate that the whistle or bell did not sound. We recently…

Lusby v. Union Pacific R. Co.

Although the expert might have been able to generate similar data himself, see Robertson, 954 F.2d at 1435,…