Chambers v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 25 February 1930 |
| Citation | 233 Ky. 211,25 S.W.2d 363 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS v. HAWKINS. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Whitley County.
Action by Mary Hawkins against Dr. S. C. Chambers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
R. L Pope and Ayres & Broughton, all of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.
B. B Snyder and W. B. Early, both of Williamsburg, for appellee.
On Sunday, October 9, 1927, the appellant, Dr. S. C. Chambers his wife, her sister, and the latter's husband, Felix Gorman, with two children, started from their homes in Jellico, Tenn., to spend the day with relatives in Bell county. Along the way they stopped at the home of the appellee, Mrs. Mary Hawkins, aunt of Mrs. Chambers and Mrs. Gorman, and invited her to accompany them. The automobile in which they were traveling belonged to Dr. Chambers, who drove it on the return trip that afternoon until they reached Corbin, when he had Gorman to take the wheel. The two men and a child were in front, and the three ladies and another child on the rear seat of the car. Shortly after dark, the car proceeded at a speed of 40 to 45 miles an hour to an abrupt, compound curve where the highway crossed the railroad. Because of the speed being maintained, the automobile was not able to negotiate the curve, and ran off the road a considerable distance across the railroad tracks and down an enbankment to a sudden stop, resulting in injuries to Mrs. Hawkins. She sued Dr. Chambers for damages, and recovered judgment against him for $2,000, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The fact itself proclaims negligence. Cf. Consolidated Coach Corporation v. Hopkins, 228 Ky. 184, 14 S.W.2d 768. It is supplemented by the evidence of the driver that, although he slackened his speed to 30 or 35 miles an hour, he could not make the curve at that speed, and had failed to observe the situation sooner because the lights on the car did not disclose it. No other reason or excuse is offered for the accident. The driver, Gorman, was operating the car at the request of the owner, who was sitting next to him and in charge of the machine; so the former's negligence must be imputed to the latter, and he must be held responsible. The duty owed the appellee as an invited guest was that of ordinary care to avert and not to create or increase danger. Beard v. Klusmeier, 158 Ky. 153, 164 S.W. 319, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1100, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 342.
It is insisted that the appellee was guilty of contributory negligence, in that she failed to admonish the driver with respect to the speed of the car and the near approach of this curve. It appears that she had lived in its vicinity about twelve years before, and it is claimed that she was therefore more familiar with the dangerous curve than either the appellant or Gorman, who were comparative strangers to it. But it is also shown that when Mrs. Hawkins knew the crossing it was a rough, dirt road, and it had since been entirely reconstructed and paved as a part of the Dixie Highway. She was a diminutive, elderly lady, crowded in the back seat of a closed car, riding along in the nighttime, feeling bad and tired, as she says, and thinking only about getting home, without any thought of the whereabouts of the car or manner of driving, since she had been assured at the time Gorman took the wheel that he was a good driver.
An invited guest is not to be held responsible for the negligence of the owner of an automobile or his agent. Ray v. Ray, 196 Ky. 579, 245 S.W. 287; Consolidated Coach Corporation v. Saunders, 229 Ky 284, 17 S.W.2d 233. But he may not ignore obvious or imminent dangers when he possesses or has the same opportunity to possess knowledge of them. Ordinarily he may not continue in the car without protest against recklessness or negligence of the one in charge and take no precaution for his own safety, assuming the risk or participating in the negligence, and then maintain that he was without fault. He must exercise ordinary care for his own safety. Stephenson's Adm'x v. Sharp's Ex'rs, 222 Ky. 496, 1 S.W.2d 957, which is supported by numerous authorities therein cited. See, also, Winston's Adm'r v. City of Henderson, 179 Ky....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terminal Transport Company v. Berry
...Coach Corp. v. Hopkins, 228 Ky. 184, 14 S.W.2d 768; Consolidated Coach Corp. v. Saunders, 229 Ky. 284, 17 S.W.2d 233; Chambers v. Hawkins, 233 Ky. 211, 25 S.W.2d 363; Hedger v. Davis, 236 Ky. 432, 33 S.W. 2d 310; Gayheart v. Smith, 240 Ky. 596, 42 S.W.2d 877; Heil v. Seidel, 249 Ky. 314, 60......
-
Toppass v. Perkins' Adm'x
... ... Precautions to be taken by ... the passenger are in any event less than those required of ... the driver. Chambers v. Hawkins, 233 Ky. 211, 25 ... S.W.2d 363; Haller's Pet Shop v. Pearlman, 253 ... Ky. 130, 69 S.W.2d 9 ... In the ... ...
-
Gayheart v. Smith
...18; City of Providence v. Young, 227 Ky. 690, 13 S.W.2d 1022; W. T. Grant Co. v. Taylor, 223 Ky. 812, 4 S.W.2d 741; Chambers v. Hawkins, 233 Ky. 211, 25 S.W.2d 363. are unable to say in this case that the damages allowed were excessive within the meaning of the rules by which we are governe......
-
Droppelman v. Willingham
...his car which was in his possession and control though it was being driven by Miss Hunt. A like contention was made in Chambers v. Hawkins, 233 Ky. 211, 25 S.W.2d 363, where the facts were similar, and it was held that the of the car was the owner's agent. Appellant asks that if the judgmen......