Hall v. Ratliff

Decision Date07 February 1958
Citation312 S.W.2d 473
PartiesLouise HALL, Appellant, v. Mary M. RATLIFF, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Baird & Hays, Pikeville, for appellant.

V. R. Bentley, Pikeville, for appellee.

STEWART, Judge.

This action, instituted by plaintiff, Mary M. Ratliff, against defendant, Louise Hall, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by an automobile accident, resulted in a jury award of $3,640 to plaintiff. Defendant appeals. We shall refer to the parties throughout this opinion as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'.

These reasons are urged for reversal: (1) The lower court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant because it is claimed negligence upon the part of defendant's driver was not proven; (2) the instructions did not adequately present the question of emergency to the jury and overemphasized the duties of defendant's driver; and (3) counsel for plaintiff asked improper questions of the operator of the taxicab on cross-examination.

A preliminary statement of the facts is necessary in order to understand the contentions of defendant. The evidence discloses that plaintiff, Mary M. Ratliff, a passenger in a taxicab owned by defendant, Louise Hall, and operated on the occasion by one James Reynolds who was traveling toward Prestonsburg from Pikeville, ran off U. S. Highway No. 23 around midnight on December 17, 1955, some 18 miles north of Pikeville. Reynolds testified he met at a place known as Betsy Layne a large tractortrailor truck which was ascending a slight hill that curved considerably to his left and which was traveling in the middle of the road. He stated that he slowed down practically to a stop, pulled to his right to avoid a collision with the vehicle, and dropped off the blacktop pavement onto the shoulder of the highway. He claims that, in undertaking to cut back onto his lane of traffic, after the truck had passed, he skidded on ice on the hard surface of the highway and went over an embankment on his left into a fence, knocking down two iron posts. Reynolds said he had no notice of the condition of the highway until the moment his wheels were mounting upon the pavement. Plaintiff was thrown out of the taxicab with the result that her left arm was broken and other injuries were received.

Plaintiff, Mary M. Ratliff, the only eyewitness to this accident besides Reynolds, testified that the truck did not crowd or force Reynolds off the highway; that this vehicle 'had already gone by when he pulled over'; and that the taxicab did not skid before it went over the embankment. She gave this brief and rather obscure explanation on cross-examination as to Reynolds' maneuvers with the car: 'He pulled over and the truck went by and then he went back out into the road and then he went over and hit the end of the fence post.'

There is a contrariety in the evidence as to whether the pavement was in an icy condition at the site of the accident. The operator of the taxicab, Reynolds, stated it was drizzling rain when he left Pikeville with plaintiff as a passenger and it was sleeting by the time he reached Betsy Layne. Defendant's witness, Homer Cecil, who arrived where the wreck occurred a short time after it happened, testified that the blacktop at the place where the car left the road was wet and he 'imagined a car naturally would slide' at this spot because 'the tires would be slippery.' Plaintiff said the highway was dry when the taxicab departed from Pikeville but that she did not know the state it was in at Betsy Layne. Other witnesses testified that the highway en route to Pikeville was extremely slippery from midnight on.

The evidence clearly discloses an issue of fact was made out by the conflicting versions given by witnesses appearing in behalf of each of the parties as to whether the negligence of the taxicab operator caused the accident. The latter's testimony was in substance that the mishap was unavoidable because of the slippery or icy surface of the pavement; plaintiff's proof creates the inference that the driver lost control of the car through carelessness and, as a consequence, wrecked it, thereby causing her injury. We conclude the lower court properly allowed the jury to resolve this conflict developed by the evidence.

The next complaint concerns the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction offered by defendant that would allow the jury in effect to determine whether an emergency arose which the driver of the taxicab undertook to avoid and also to find his acts were excusable if they believed such were not caused by his negligence. On this point it is argued defendant's evidence established that the taxicab was compelled to get off the hard surface in order to escape collision with the truck...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Harris v. Thompson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 29, 1973
    ...385 S.W.2d 178, 179 (1964), and possibly Hettrick v. Willis, Ky., 439 S.W.2d 942, 944 (1969), have eroded the effect of Hall v. Ratliff, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 473 (1958), in which the defendant's vehicle had struck a patch of ice and slid off the road and this court held he was entitled to a sudd......
  • Moores v. Fayette County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • March 17, 1967
    ...in Happy v. Erwin in this respect. To inject the insurance angle into a case is generally considered to be reversible error. Hall v. Ratliff, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 473. Further, in a majority of jurisdictions it is held that the procurement of liability or indemnity insurance by a governmental un......
  • Cain v. Wilkins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 20, 1958
    ...158 S.W.2d 652; Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Franklin, 301 Ky. 867, 192 S.W.2d 753. One of our latest cases on the question is Hall v. Ratliff, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 473. See, also, Clement Brothers Construction Co. v. Moore, Ky., 314 S.W.2d 526. In the cases cited by the appellants there was eith......
  • Sloan v. Iverson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • December 18, 1964
    ...there is no merit in Sloan's contention that he was entitled to an 'unavoidable accident' or 'sudden emergency' instruction. Hall v. Ratliff, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 473, is distinguishable because there the skidding was upon an isolated spot of ice of which the driver was not aware. Here, Sloan kn......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT