Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 13 March 1959 |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LIMITED, Appellant, v. Margaret SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Lester L. Parrott, Barbourville, for appellant.
H. M. Tye, Lowell Lundy, Barbourville, for appellee.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Juanita Mills, a five-year-old girl, was injured when struck by a truck operated by Essau Hoskins. The Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, carrier of liability insurance on the Hoskins truck, paid $7,000 in settlement of a claim asserted on behalf of the little girl (without suit), and obtained a release of their liability. The insurance company then brought this action against Margaret Smith, seeking contribution on the theory that she had been guilty of negligence that contributed to cause the accident, and therefore was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the insurance company has appealed from the judgment entered on that verdict.
The controlling question is whether or not the evidence created a jury question as to negligence on the part of Miss Smith.
Miss Smith, a country schoolteacher, volunteered to give some of her pupils a ride towards their homes at the close of school on September 2, 1955. The pupils were Juanita Mills, age five, her sister Louise, age 8, another girl named Janice Mills, around nine years of age, and Claudie Hinkle, age seven. Miss Smith's route of travel was along a narrow, graveled country road. The Mills children lived on a side road leading off from this road to the left, and the Hinkle boy lived around 150 feet past the entrance to the side road, on the right side of the road on which Miss Smith was traveling. Miss Smith drove about 65 feet past the entrance to the side road and then stopped her car on the right side, as near to the edge as possible, to let the children out. She stopped at this point with the view of making an equal division of the walking distance for the children. The children got out and the Mills children went around to the rear of the car (since they had to walk back about 65 feet and then across the road to enter the sideroad leading to their home), while the Hinkle boy started walking towards his home along the right side of the road. After the children had alighted, and while Miss Smith's car remained stopped, she saw the Hoskins truck coming around a curve, at a fast rate of speed, some 900 to 1,500 feet in front of her car. She made no attempt to ascertain the position of the Mills children, or warn them of the approach of the truck. When the truck was within a short distance of her car (still parked on the side of the road), Juanita Mills ran from behind her car into the road, and was struck by the truck.
Negligence is sought to be attributed to Miss Smith on the ground that she had a duty to warn the small children of the danger from the approaching truck, or to have taken precautions to see that they could cross the road safely. It is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colson v. Shaw
...likely to create a hazard to those alighting. Nelson v. Williams, 300 Minn. 143, 218 N.W.2d 471 (1974); Employers Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Smith, 322 S.W.2d 126 (Ky.1959); 7A Am.Jur.2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 572 (1980). See also Chatterton v. Pocatello Post, 70 Idaho 48......
-
Colson v. Shaw
...circumstance appears in the present case. The facts of the present case are very similar to those in Employers Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd. v. Smith, 322 S.W.2d 126 (Ky.1959). In that case a country school teacher had volunteered to give some of her small pupils a ride toward their home at ......