## Facts

- Canman was a paying passenger on an Arkansas Midland Railway train.
- Shortly after departure, at approximately eight miles per hour, the coach carrying Canman derailed, left the track, overturned, and severely injured him.
- Canman sued the railroad for negligence in operating and maintaining the train and track.
- The case was submitted to the jury on both (1) a general verdict on negligence and (2) special interrogatories aimed at identifying the specific cause of the derailment.
- The jury could not agree on the precise cause of the derailment reflected in the interrogatories, but returned a general verdict finding the railroad negligent and awarding damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury may return a general verdict finding a railroad negligent for a passenger’s injuries when jurors cannot agree on a single, specific cause of a derailment and therefore cannot answer special interrogatories on causation.
2. Whether the inability to agree on causation interrogatories creates a fatal inconsistency requiring the general verdict to be set aside.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Canman.
- The court held that the general negligence verdict could stand even though the jury did not agree on the precise mechanism causing the derailment.
- The court rejected the railroad’s argument that unanswered or nonunanimous special interrogatories on specific causation nullified the general verdict.
- The court found no irreconcilable conflict between the general verdict and the jury’s failure to identify a single specific cause.

## Legal Principles

- A general verdict of negligence is valid if the evidence supports a reasonable finding that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury, even if jurors disagree about which particular negligent act produced the harm.
- In a passenger derailment, the occurrence of a coach leaving the track and overturning under the carrier’s control may support an inference of negligence without proof of the exact defect or operational error.
- Special interrogatories intended to obtain detailed factual findings do not defeat a general verdict unless they are legally controlling or produce answers that directly and irreconcilably conflict with the general verdict.
- A railroad, as a common carrier of passengers, owes a high degree of care to protect passengers from injury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a passenger’s negligence judgment against a railroad, ruling that jurors may unanimously find liability based on the derailment and the evidence of negligent conduct even if they cannot agree on the specific causal mechanism sought by special interrogatories, absent a direct inconsistency with the general verdict.


Arkansas Midland Ry. v. Canman, 52 Ark. 517, 13 S.W. 280 (1890)