Central Kentucky Traction Co. v. May

• Decision Date: 14 April 1910
• Citation: 126 S.W. 1092
• Parties: CENTRAL KENTUCKY TRACTION CO. v. MAY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

126 S.W. 1092

CENTRAL KENTUCKY TRACTION CO. v. MAY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 14, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Nat May against the Central Kentucky Traction Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Hazelrigg & Hazelrigg, for appellant.

W. C Marshall and B. G. Williams, for appellee.

LASSING J.

On July 4, 1908, appellee was a passenger on one of appellant's cars going to the park at Thorn Hill. The car was crowded and he was standing on the step on the left-hand side. As the car was passing "Morgan's Corner" in Frankfort he was knocked off by coming in contact with a post standing near the track. He sustained a scalp wound, and was otherwise bruised about the body, was unconscious for some time after the injury, was taken to the hospital, rendered the necessary medical aid, and two days thereafter returned to his home. He sued to recover for his injuries upon the theory that they resulted from the negligence of the appellant company in operating its car and in suffering and permitting the post with which his body came in contact to be and remain so close to its track as to make it a menace to the traveling public. The company denied liability, and pleaded contributory negligence. Upon a trial before a jury appellee recovered a verdict for $1,000, and from the judgment predicated thereon this appeal is prosecuted.

Two grounds are relied on: First, that the verdict is grossly excessive; and, second, that the court erred in authorizing the jury to award punitive damages.

The only physician who testifies in the case is the one who rendered medical aid immediately following the accident. In his opinion the injury was not of a serious nature, and the ill effects which appellee alleges he has experienced because thereof are in the opinion of this physician not attributable to the injury. Appellee testifies that since the date of the injury he has partially lost the use of one of his eyes, and he attributes this partial loss of vision to the injury on his head caused by coming in contact with the post. The evidence bearing upon the extent of appellee's injury is not altogether satisfactory, and, while the verdict of $1,000 seems large, we would not feel disposed to disturb it if there was no error in the instructions. But, in addition to the instruction authorizing a verdict in favor of appellee for compensatory damages, the court also told the jury that they might or not, in their discretion, award punitive damages. This we think was clearly error, for if negligent at all, and upon this point the...