Bolus v. Martin L. Adams and Son
| Decision Date | 31 January 1969 |
| Citation | 438 S.W.2d 79 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | Kittrell BOLUS, originalty suing through his next friend, Dorothy Bolus, Appellant, v. MARTIN L. ADAMS & SON et al., Appellees. |
E. Gerry Barker, Louisville, for appellant.
Fielden Woodward, Jack M. Lowery, Jr., , thomas Burton, John F. Rogers, Louisville, for appellees.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Kittrell Bolus was thrown from a Triumph roadster, in which he had been riding as a passenger, when the roadster went out of control on a suburban road in Jefferson County and hit a tree. The roadster came to a stop in the left traffic lane and Bolus fell inert in the right lane. An automobile driven by Martin Adams, which had been following the Triumph, failed to stop, and it passed over Bolus' outstretched form, whereby he was injured. Bolus sued Adams and the owner of the Adams automobile. At the close of the plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict for the defendants on the ground that Bolus was shown to have been contributorily negligent as a matter of law (by riding with a driver with whom he had been drinking and whose course of reckless driving he had not protested against). Judgment was entered dismissing the action. Appealing from that judgment Bolus contends only that he was entitled to have his case submitted to the jury under a last-clear-chance instruction.
The accident occurred on Blankenbaker Lane, which is a two-lane blacktop road. From the point of its intersection with Camargo Road, going southward, the Lane rises a hill for a distance of approximately 400 feet. At the crest of the hill the Lane curves to the right. Trees line both sides of the Lane at the crest of the hill and along the curve.
The Triumph, going south, went out of control at the crest of the hill; it skidded for a distance of 115 feet and hit a tree on the left side of the road, after which it came to a stop in the left lane. Bolus was thrown into the right lane. Adams, who had been following the Triumph, almost brought his car to a stop before reaching the spot where Bolus lay, but his car was in motion when it passed over Bolus and it dragged him some five feet.
There was evidence, including the testimony of a disinterested bystander, that the speeds of the two cars were from 40 to 45 miles per hour. Adams testified that he had been following the Triumph around 100 yards back, but there was other evidence which would warrant a finding that he was some 400 feet back. Adams said he was about 'a quarter of the way up' the hill when he saw the Triumph hit the tree and that 'the reaction time' took another quarter. He then applied his brakes and turned as far off the road on the left as he could (there was a bank along the edge); he was about half way up the hill when he started braking. However, at that point he had not yet seen Bolus' body in the road; as he neared the point where the Triumph was, 'all of a sudden just from out of nowhere Kit Bolus was thrown back from the car and dropped in front of my car and I already had my brakes on full hard, locked up.' At that point he was only 20 feet from Bolus.
Despite Adams' testimony that he applied his brakes firmly when he was only half way up the hill the evidence would warrant the conclusion that he did not effectively apply his brakes until coming much closer to the point of the accident. The hill was 400 feet in length and the Triumph skidded 115 feet after reaching the crest, thus indicating that the point where the Triumph came to rest and Bolus fell in the road was some 300 feet from the point half way up the hill where Adams said he had applied his brakes. According to generally accepted tables of braking distances, a car traveling 40 miles per hour can be brought to a normal stop within a distance of 84 feet after the driver has reacted and applied the brakes, and at 50 miles per hour the distance is only 131 feet. If Adams had applied his brakes where he said he did he should have been able to come to a full stop, without a skid, at least 100 feet before reaching the point of the accident. Instead he skidded 85 feet and was not yet stopped when he reached the point of the accident. The foregoing analysis of time and distance is corroborated by the testimony of the distinterested bystander that some five seconds elapsed between the time the Triumph hit the tree and the time Adams hit Bolus. At 40 miles per hour Adams would have traveled some 300 feet in five seconds.
So, as we said above, it reasonably could be believed that Adams did not apply his brakes when he first observed the Triumph hit the tree....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. B & R Corporation
...the latter concerns the foreseeability of the consequences or specific injury in the given case. See., e.g., Bolus v. Martin L. Adams & Son, Ky., 438 S.W.2d 79, 81 (1969)("It is not necessary, to impose liability for negligence. that the defendant should have been able to anticipate the pre......
-
Lee v. Farmer's Rural Elec. Co-Op. Corp., 2006-CA-001641-MR.
...general foreseeability of such harm, not whether the specific mechanism of the harm could be foreseen. See, e.g., Bolus v. Martin L. Adams & Son, 438 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Ky.1969) ("It is not necessary, to impose liability for negligence, that the defendant should have been able to anticipate the......
-
Raytheon Co. v. Ahtna Support & Training Servs.
...... foreseeable harm. See Bolus v. Martin L. Adams &. Son, 438 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Ky. 1969) (The foreseeability. factor ......
-
Byler v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.
...S.W.2d 422 (Ky.App.1973), regardless of whether the precise injury caused was foreseeably by that person or not. Bolus v. Martin L. Adams & Son, 438 S.W.2d 79 (Ky.App.1969). Thus, we examine whether Scripto-Tokai's decision not to childproof its lighters was what an ordinarily prudent manuf......