Cook v. Gillespie

• Decision Date: 22 March 1935
• Parties: COOK v. GILLESPIE.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

82 S.W.2d 347

259 Ky. 281

COOK v. GILLESPIE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

March 22, 1935

Appellee's Motion to Set Aside Judgment Overruled June 11, 1935.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County, Common Law and Equity Division.

Suit by Miranda Gillespie against Leonard Cook and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, named defendant appeals.

Reversed as to defendant named.

Rogers & Rogers, of Covington, for appellant.

Northcutt & Northcutt, of Covington, for appellee.

DRURY Commissioner.

A suit begun by Miranda Gillespie against Leonard Cook and Allie Baldwin to recover $5,260 for injuries received by her in an automobile collision resulted in the following judgment entered upon a verdict signed by ten jurors: "It is adjudged that the plaintiff, Miranda Gillespie, recover of the defendants, Leonard Cook and Allie Baldwin, jointly, the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars--from Leonard Cook the sum of three hundred ($300.00) dollars and from Allie Baldwin the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars, and her costs herein expended." Cook's motion for a new trial having been overruled, he appeals.

This accident occurred about 5:30 p. m., August 20, 1932, on the Dixie highway about one-half mile north of the village of Richwood and at the entrance of the Frogtown road, which there enters the Dixie highway from the west and forms a T-shaped intersection with it.

Cook in his truck had been traveling north on the Dixie highway and was turning to the left into this Frogtown road when the collision occurred. Baldwin was also traveling north on the Dixie highway, but on the left or west side thereof, and was endeavoring to pass Cook's truck when the left front wheel of the truck was brushed by one of the right fenders of Baldwin's coupé which caused the coupé to leave the road, to run over some logs into a Coca-Cola sign into a fence, and finally when about eighty feet from this intersection to strike against and break off a fifteen-inch telephone pole by which the coupé was wrecked.

Mrs Gillespie was a guest in the Baldwin coupé, and in the wreck was seriously injured.

Duties of these Men.

Where a statute imposes upon the operator of a motor vehicle duties relative to turning, stopping, or changing the course of such vehicle and giving signals therefor, there falls upon the operators of trailing and oncoming vehicles the duty to watch for, and observe such signals, to give due regard to them and to keep their trailing or oncoming vehicles under such control as to avoid colliding with the vehicle, from which the signals were given, while it is turning, stopping, or changing its course as indicated. Wright v. Clausen, 253 Ky. 498, 69 S.W.2d 1062; 42 C.J. p. 949, § 671, note 69.

The operator of the trailing vehicle must remember the man ahead is engaged in handling a high-power, dangerous machine, requiring constant attention and quick action, and that his outlook is ahead and not behind. Wright v. Clausen, 253 Ky. 498, 69 S.W.2d 1062; Government Street Lumber Co. v. Ollinger, 18 Ala. App. 518, 94 So. 177.

Was Cook Negligent?

Cook was driving a half-ton Ford truck. No one says he was traveling over 15 or 20 miles per hour, and it is not disputed that he was traveling still slower as he made this turn. His truck was equipped with a rear-view mirror. Seven witnesses say he gave a signal of his intention to turn by holding his left hand straight out. No one testifies that he turned and looked back. Of course he could have got a view of the traffic behind him by looking in his mirror, but no one says whether he did or not. Mrs. Gillespie cannot rely on Cook's failure to look unless she has some evidence he failed to look. She has none.

Mrs. Gillespie must look for Cook's negligence in some violation of the statutes, for back in the days of horse-drawn vehicles the rights of the man on his right side of the road were superior to the rights of the man on his left side of the road, and the rights of the man in front were superior to those of the man behind, the overtaking vehicle had to use proper caution in passing and watch for oncoming vehicles (29 C.J. p. 654, § 419), and the man in front could turn across the road, and he need not under all circumstances look behind him or sideways before crossing the street, or necessarily anticipate that a team is behind, or give a signal. See 29 C.J. p. 655, § 420. In 1836 in Payne v. Smith, 4 Dana (34 Ky.) 497, Smith's gig struck and killed a horse that sauntered across the street in front of him, and this court held he was liable to Payne for the value of his horse. "Except in matters of detail [our statutes regarding motor vehicles] are largely declaratory of what the law was before they were written, and the duties of automobile drivers are not limited to those mentioned in the statute." Hardware Mutual Cas. Co. v. Union T. & S. Co., 205 Ky. 651, 266 S.W. 362, 364; Cumberland T. & T. Co. v. Yeiser, 141 Ky. 15, 131 S.W. 1049, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1137. The statutes have to some extent changed that at least as regards motor vehicles, and now if the man in front desires to turn or change his course he must:

(a) See that there is sufficient space for such change or turn to be made in safety.

(b) If it appears that the movement or operation of another or other vehicles may reasonably be affected by such change, he must give plainly visible signals, etc. Section 2739g-50, Ky States. In other words, he must look; then, if he sees any one to whom to give a signal, he must do that. The law does not impose upon him the duty of giving a...