Asher v. Russell
| Decision Date | 31 January 1964 |
| Citation | 377 S.W.2d 803 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | Hazel Robinson ASHER, Appellant, v. Mrs. Clyde RUSSELL et al., Appellees. |
William S. Tribell, Middlesboro, for appellant.
Glenn W. Denham, Middlesboro, for appellees.
Appellant, Hazel Robinson Asher, was a passenger in a car owned by appellee, Mrs. Clyde Russell, and driven by appellee, Otis V. Guy, herein feferred to as 'Guy.' This car was involved in a head-on collision with a car driven by one Everett Slusher. Appellant sustained severe injuries and brought suit against appellees for damages.
At the trial, appellant testified in her own behalf, Guy testified as if on cross-examination, and appellant's physician testified as to the extent of her injuries. Appellant then announced all her evidence in chief had been introduced. At this juncture appellees moved for a directed verdict which was granted. This appeal followed.
The question presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in peremptorily instructing a verdict for appellees. Appellant claims she introduced proof sufficient to create a jury question on the negligence and liability of appellees.
It appears that about noontime on June 7, 1960, appellee, Mrs. Clyde Russell, requested Guy to take her car to the garage and have it serviced. This task he performed and, in appreciation of his having attended to the car, Mrs. Russell told him he could use it that afternoon. Later he picked up appellant and the two in Mrs. Russell's car left for Pineville with Guy as the driver. They intended to return to Middlesboro in the late afternoon. At that time he was 17 years of age but had a driver's license.
The evidence of appellant was that on this trip at about 6:30 p. m., as the car in which she was riding drew near the city limits of Middlesboro, she saw Slusher's car some 300 to 400 feet away approaching Guy's car on the latter's side of the highway. She estimated Guy's speed at about 40 miles per hour. She yelled to Guy to get over, as she believed they were going to get hit. Then the accident occurred and she does not remember what happened after that. She said she had ridden with Guy on other occasions and that he was a good driver. On cross-examination, she stated she was not sure at what rate of speed Guy was travelling, just prior to the collision, and she admitted she was not certain how far away Slusher's car was when she first saw it.
Guy's testimony, in summary, was that he saw Slusher's car approaching in his (Guy's) lane when the cars were 200 to 300 feet apart. Slusher's car was drawing near a Shell Filling Station, at a place called 'Hill Top,' which is a short distance north of Middlesboro. Guy said he immediately 'dropped off the gas.' His impression was that Slusher was turning into the filling station. Guy swerved to the right and applied the brakes. His wheels skidded three feet or more before the cars came together.
Guy's car ended up in his own lane following the impact. Slusher's car went past Guy's car and over on the shoulder of Slusher's proper lane of travel. Guy testified the shoulder on his side of the road was wide enough to drive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Frey
...charge of motor vehicles, regardless of ownership, with the exception of one who sells a motor vehicle to a minor. See also Asher v. Russell, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 803. By making the person liable who enables a minor to operate a motor vehicle, an additional source for the recovery of damages is ......
-
Carnes v. Mills
...The appellant says the accident would have happened, no matter what he did. Was this an issue for the jury? This court in Asher v. Russell, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 803, where the facts were very similar, said that this was a jury issue. In that case the distance and time factors differed only Decis......