Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hamlin v. Darr
Citations: 220 Ark. 841; 250 S.W.2d 532; 1952 Ark. LEXIS 806Docket: 4-9840
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 7, 1952; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
A wrongful death suit was filed by Veryl Darr's widow and children following his fatal collision with a truck driven by F. J. Hamlin, an employee of A. L. Toombs. The jury's determination of liability hinged on whether the accident occurred on Darr's or Hamlin's side of the road. Hamlin, the sole eyewitness, claimed Darr's vehicle crossed the center line, colliding with his truck despite his evasive actions. This was supported by additional witnesses. Conversely, plaintiff witnesses indicated the collision point was marked by a scar on Darr's side, with physical evidence suggesting Darr’s vehicle had significant damage. Given this conflicting testimony, the court rightfully allowed the jury to decide the matter rather than directing a verdict for the defendants. Hamlin challenged the court's jurisdiction, citing the summons referencing an outdated statute. However, the court concluded it had jurisdiction based on subsequent legislative changes. The defendants also contended that the court wrongly permitted the plaintiffs to impeach their own witness regarding the timing of the collision report. The court found that such discrepancies did not constitute prohibited impeachment. Regarding jury instructions, the court denied the defendants' request to separately instruct on Darr's alleged intoxication, as contributory negligence was sufficiently addressed in other instructions. The defendants had previously asserted specific negligence claims but did not mention intoxication, and the court held discretion to deny a late amendment to their pleadings. The court found that the defendants' proposed instructions were adequately covered by existing instructions. The judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was affirmed.