Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1952 |
| Citation | 245 S.W.2d 589 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS et al. v. IDEAL PURE MILK CO. et al. CHAMBERS et al. v. ELMORE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Davis, Boehl, Viser & Marcus, Louisville, for appellants.
Wilson & Wilson, Owensboro, for appellees.
About 3 o'clock in the morning of February 10, 1941, the appellees' horse drawn, lighted milk wagon moved northwardly along Center Street, Owensboro, and proceeded to turn left in a westerly direction into Fourth Street, which is U. S. 60, designated by city ordinance as an arterial highway. Before the left turn could be completed it was cut in two by a speeding automobile driven without lights by Wren Shearer, who was fleeing from city policemen, the appellants, Robert Chambers and Jack Long, who were pursuing him in a city police cruiser. At the trial in October, 1949, eight years after the accident, the jury rendered a verdict for $588.83 for the appellee Ideal Pure Milk Company, for its property damage, and a verdict for $10,588.85 for the driver, the appellee Milton (Si) Elmore, as compensation for his severe injuries. One of the grounds urged for reversal of the judgments is the contention that the pursuit of Shearer by the appellants, policemen, was not the proximate cause of the damage.
Mr. Elmore, the driver of the milk wagon, was unable to testify as to whose automobile hit him. On the other hand, the appellants, policemen, stated that their car did not hit the milk wagon, but that the severed portion of the milk wagon hit their car on the left rear fender. 'We didn't hit it; we had already stopped when it (the severed portion of the milk wagon) hit the back end of our car.' (Testimony of Robert Chambers.) This is indicated by photographs filed as Chambers' Exhibits No. 2 and No. 4. Wren Shearer testified that he was going seventy to seventy-five miles an hour at the time of his collision with the milk wagon, and it was his opinion that the police cruiser caught up with him, hit his car, his car hit the milk wagon, and the police cruiser bounded around and hit the milk wagon too. However, he could not testify to this as a fact. Mr. Elmore, the driver of the milk wagon, had testified that he felt two almost simultaneous blows at the time of the collision.
Appellant Chambers testified by deposition that he saw the milk wagon come out of Center Street when the cruiser was about a block away, thought an accident might be impending at Fourth and Center, and that he managed to slow down sufficiently to turn right from Fourth Street south into Center Street. It was while making this turn that he says the severed portion of the milk wagon spun around and collided against the cruiser's left rear fender. If the cruiser had not come to a dead stop at the time of impact with the severed portion of the milk wagon, the skid marks ten to twenty feet in length shown in Chambers' photographic Exhibit No. 4, and admittedly the marks of the cruiser, show that it had almost done so. In fact, the skid marks reveal that the cruiser attempted to turn south into Center Street after having nearly crossed that thoroughfare. This clearly indicates that the driver of the cruiser was attempting to avoid the scene of the collision and to dodge the moving, severed portion of the milk wagon, which, nevertheless, hit his left rear fender.
Chambers said he was acquainted with Shearer's past record, that 'he was a suspicious character and we have a right to investigate suspicious characters,' and that was the reason in the beginning why he decided to turn his cruiser around in order to see what Shearer was doing in the parked car. The chase that followed covered about thirteen city blocks before the accident occurred, and during it the cruiser had its red lights flashing, its siren screaming, and the officers fired shots into the air in an effort to halt Shearer.
The statute regulating the speed of motor vehicles does not apply to city fire and police vehicles, now KRS 189.390(4a); Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, Section 2739g-51(9), effective at the time of this accident, and police cars have the right of way while being operated as such 'with due regard to the safety of the public.' KRS 189.320; Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, Section 2739g-38. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tice v. Cramer
...law), aff'd, 917 F.2d 564 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1417, 113 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991); Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co., 245 S.W.2d 589 (Ky.1952); Boyer, supra, 594 A.2d 121; Oberkramer v. City of Ellisville, 706 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Mo.1986); Lee v. City of Omaha, 209 Ne......
-
Day v. State ex rel. Utah Dept. of Public Safety
...See United States v. Hutchins, 268 F.2d 69 (6th Cir.1959); Thornton v. Shore, 233 Kan. 737, 666 P.2d 655 (1983); Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co., 245 S.W.2d 589 (Ky.Ct.App.1952); Kelly v. City of Tulsa, 791 P.2d 826 (Okla.Ct.App.1990); Dickens v. Horner, 531 Pa. 127, 611 A.2d 693 (1992); Ne......
-
Boyer v. State
...conduct is the sole proximate cause. See, e.g., United States v. Hutchins, 268 F.2d 69, 72, (6th Cir.1959); Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co., 245 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Ky.App.1952); Roll v. Timberman, 94 N.J.Super. 530, 536-538, 229 A.2d 281, 284-285, cert. denied, 50 N.J. 84, 232 A.2d 147 (1967)......
-
Travis v. City of Mesquite
...Ind.App. 460, 466, 284 N.E.2d 141, 145 (1972); Thornton v. Shore, 233 Kan. 737, 753, 666 P.2d 655, 668 (1983); Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co., 245 S.W.2d 589, 590-91 (Ky.1952); Oberkramer v. City of Ellisville, 706 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Mo.1986); Blanchard v. Town of Kearny, 145 N.J.Super. 246,......
-
Police Vehicular Pursuits: An Overview of Research and Legal Conceptualizations for Police Administrators
...of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989).California Highway Patrol. (1983). Pursuit study. Sacramento: Author.Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co., 245 S.W. 2d 589 (Ky. 1952).Charles, M., & Falcone, D. (1992). Illinois’police officer’s opinions on police pursuit American Journal of Police, 11(3), 69-88. Cha......