Epperson v. Wright

• Decision Date: 28 February 1939
• Citation: 277 Ky. 205
• Parties: Epperson v. Wright.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

277 Ky. 205

Epperson v. Wright.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 28, 1939.

1. Automobiles. — Automobile guest is not equally bound with driver to watch for approach of other traffic, since responsibility for the management of the automobile rests on the driver.

2. Appeal and Error. — In guest's action against host for injuries sustained in intersectional automobile collision, where danger was not obvious and manner of driving in suddenly appearing situation did not call for protest of guest, and there was no evidence tending to show failure of guest to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, instruction on contributory negligence was reversible error.

Appeal from Boyd Circuit Court.

WOODS & WOODS for appellant.

HANNAH, VANSANT & McKENZIE for appellee.

Before WATT M. PRICHARD, Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER.

Reversing.

The verdict in this case was for the defendant, Albert Wright, in a suit by Mrs. Jewell Epperson for damages caused in an automobile accident. The sole ground upon which the appeal is predicated is error of the court in giving a contributory negligence instruction.

Mrs. Epperson was a guest on the back seat of the defendant's car. He and his wife were on the front seat. They were traveling north on Crooks Avenue, in Ashland, and collided with a machine being driven east by John Blizzard at the intersection with Main Street. The plaintiff testified that Wright was not going fast and that she was not paying any attention to his driving for she was talking with Mrs. Wright. She did not realize a collision was impending and the first she knew of it was when she regained consciousness and saw an ambulance and a policeman at the scene. Blizzard, introduced by the plaintiff, testified that he was driving a 1928 Hupmobile; that he came to a full stop at the intersection; didn't see any car coming, and started across Crooks Avenue in low gear. When near the middle of the street he saw the defendant's car about a block away, and "I mashed on my gas" but "it would not take it." He was going about 10 miles an hour and Wright's car came on and struck the side of his machine mashing it in and knocking it off the street. In contradiction the defendant proved that shortly after the accident Blizzard had stated he had not stopped at the intersection because he did not know it was a stop street.

The evidence for the defendant is to the effect that he was in no way negligent and that the accident was due solely to Blizzard's negligence.

Unlike cases where it could be said that a guest acquiesced in the negligent driving of a host, such as at an excessive speed (Mattingly et al. v. Meuter, 275 Ky. 294, 121 S.W. (2d) 676), or in going upon a railroad...