Cochran v. Downing
| Citation | 247 S.W.2d 228 |
| Parties | COCHRAN v. DOWNING. |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1952 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
Louis N. Garlove, David L. Waterman and Fred M. Goldberg, all of Louisville, for appellant.
Davis, Boehl, Viser & Marcus, Joseph E. Stopher and A. J. Deindoerfer, all of Louisville, for appellee.
WADDILL, Commissioner.
This appeal is from a judgment entered upon the jury's verdict denying appellant a recovery for personal injuries resulting from being allegedly struck by appellee's automobile. Appellant urges two principal grounds for reversal of the judgment: (1) Failure of the court to direct a verdict against appellee and (2) that there was no competent evidence introduced that authorized the court to give a contributory negligence instruction.
Parties to the suit were the only witnesses who testified concerning the accident. Their testimony presents different theories as to how it occurred.
Appellant testified that on March 3, 1949, near 6:00 p. m., he started to cross Broadway at the intersection of Third Street, traveling from north to south in the east crosswalk. Upon reaching a point near the center of the street, he stopped to permit several cars to complete left-hand turns to go east on Broadway. While in this position he says his attention was suddenly attracted by the lights of appellee's automobile coming toward him, which was making a short left turn and not following in the line established by the preceding vehicles. Appellant said that he turned partially facing appellee's car and the car was so close to him that he could not get out of its way and its right front fender struck him in the region of his groin and right hip, sending him spinning around the front of the car and against the side of a truck headed west on Broadway; that while still in motion and yet on his feet, he was bounded back near the left front door of appellee's car which had stopped about four feet east of the crosswalk.
On the other hand, appellee testified that immediately before the accident he was operating his car south on Third Street. When he reached the intersection of Broadway he stopped for the traffic light and when traffic in his lane proceeded, he made a left turn into Broadway following the line of vehicles proceeding in that direction; that his car was in first or second gear, traveling at a rate of four or five miles per hour. He stated that he did not see appellant and was unaware of his presence on the street until he heard a 'thump' against the left front fender as the front of his car was crossing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...reserved to the trier of fact. Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R. Co. v. Cantrell, 298 Ky., 743, 184 S.W.2d 111 (1944), and Cochran v. Downing, Ky., 247 S.W.2d 228 (1952). The prevailing party is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. Upon completion of such......
-
Atmos Energy Corp. v. Honeycutt
...of the proffered evidence because this function is reserved for the trier of fact. National, 754 S.W.2d at860 (citing Cochran v. Downing, 247 S.W.2d 228 (Ky.1952)).In order to review the trial court's actions in the case at hand, we must first see whether the trial court favored the party a......
-
Saint Joseph Healthcare, Inc. v. Thomas
...S.W.2d 459, 461 (Ky.1990) (citing Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R. Co. v. Cantrell, 298 Ky. 743, 184 S.W.2d 111 (1944) and Cochran v. Downing, 247 S.W.2d 228 (Ky.1952) ). Viewed accordingly, the evidence at trial established the following facts.At 8:08 p.m. on April 8, 1999, thirty-nine year ......
-
St. Joseph Healthcare, Inc. v. Thomas
...of the proffered evidence because this function is reserved for the trier of fact. National, 754 S.W.2d at 860 (citing Cochran v. Downing, 247 S.W.2d 228 (Ky. 1952)).In order to review the trial court's actions in the case at hand, we must first see whether the trial court favored the party......