Comer v. Yancy
| Decision Date | 28 November 1933 |
| Citation | 65 S.W.2d 459,251 Ky. 461 |
| Parties | COMER v. YANCY et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mason County.
Actions by Mrs. Lucille Comer against Hugh Yancey, Sr., and another and by Hugh Yancey, Sr., against Mrs. Lucille Comer, which were consolidated. From the judgment, Mrs. Lucille Comer appeals.
Reversed.
J. M Collins, of Maysville, and J. P. McCartney, of Flemingsburg for appellant.
B. S Grannis, of Flemingsburg, for appellees.
STANLEY Commissioner.
The appellant, Mrs. Lucille Comer, brought suit for personal injuries against the appellees Hugh Yancey, Sr., and his son Hugh Yancey, Jr. The former was the owner of an automobile driven by his minor son which collided with her machine. Yancey, Sr., brought suit also against the appellant for damages to his car. The cases were consolidated, and upon a joint trial the jury found, as reported in its verdict, that neither party was wholly to blame and that each had contributed to causing the accident and no damages was awarded to either of them. Only Mrs. Comer has appealed.
The highway runs north and south through the town of Washington. At the north end the road turns at an angle of about 45 degrees to the east. Within the curve the ground is much higher and is retained by a stone wall, so that one driving north on the east side of the road is able to see only a short distance ahead of him. One driving south on the outside of the curve can see down the road a long way. Just at the tangent on the north there is an entrance on the east side into a cemetery.
On Sunday afternoon, June 7, 1931, Mrs. Comer, with some friends in her machine, came out of the cemetery, and, according to the evidence sustaining her cause, she stopped before proceeding onto the highway, looked in both directions, blew the horn, and, hearing and seeing nothing to hinder her, then crossed over in low gear. She had turned her machine toward the south straight with the margin of the road and was moving slowly on the extreme west side, when suddenly the car driven by Yancey came around the blind curve at a rapid speed. In its wide sweep in making the curve or by skidding, it struck the side of Mrs. Comer's machine with great force, damaging it and injuring Mrs. Comer and the other occupants.
On the other side, the evidence for the appellee was that the machine driven by Yancey, who had two young companions on the front seat with him, passed through the town at a speed of thirty-five to forty-five miles an hour until just before the curve was reached, when it was reduced to about twenty-five miles an hour; that as he passed around the curve the Comer car suddenly appeared before him in the center of the road and diagonally across it; that he swerved to the right onto the cemetery driveway in order to avoid that machine, and his car skidded on the wet road and struck it broadsides.
Instruction No. 1 defined the duties of Mrs. Comer under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Price
...it may be conceded the better practice would have been to submit the question in separate instructions, nevertheless in Comer v. Yancy, 251 Ky. 461, 65 S.W.2d 459, we that a similar instruction submitted the issue of contributory negligence on the part of both parties in good form. When we ......
- Comer v. Yancey
-
Rogers v. Price
...it may be conceded the better practice would have been to submit the question in separate instructions, nevertheless in Comer v. Yancy, 251 Ky. 461, 65 S. W. (2d) 459, we held that a similar instruction submitted the issue of contributory negligence on the part of both parties in good form.......
- Poe v. Hankins' Adm'x