Hardy v. Muensch

• Decision Date: 20 June 1922
• Citation: 242 S.W. 586,195 Ky. 398
• Parties: HARDY v. MUENSCH. HARDY v. HOAGLAND.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

242 S.W. 586

195 Ky. 398

HARDY v. MUENSCH.

HARDY v. HOAGLAND.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch First Division.

Separate actions by George Muensch and William B. Hoagland against William B. Hardy consolidated for trial with a third action. Judgment for the plaintiff in each action, and defendant appeals from the judgments in the two named actions. Affirmed.

John P Haswell, Jr., of Louisville, for appellant.

Oscar Leibson and Chas. W. Morris, both of Louisville, for appellees.

CLAY J.

On September 29, 1919, a truck belonging to M. M. Broida who was doing business under the name of the Tri-City Electric Company, collided with a Dodge touring car belonging to William B. Hardy at the intersection of Walnut and Preston streets in the city of Louisville. Broida's foreman George Muensch, was driving the truck, and he was accompanied by William B. Hoagland, a fellow employee. Hardy's car was being driven by his son, William B. Hardy, Jr.

A few days after the accident, Broida sued Hardy to recover for injuries to the truck, while Muensch and Hoagland each sued to recover for personal injuries. On motion of Hardy the cases were tried together. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Broida for $175, in favor of Muensch for $750, and in favor of Hoagland for $500. From the judgments in favor of Muensch and Hoagland, Hardy appeals.

It is first insisted that the court erred in refusing to permit Hardy to show that Muensch and Hoagland each received from Broida, their employer, a certain sum as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Acts 1916, c. 33. We had occasion to consider this question in the recent case of Book v. City of Henderson, 176 Ky. 785, 197 S.W. 449, and we there held that evidence that an employee had received compensation from his employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not admissible in an action against a third party whose negligence caused the injury.

Another contention is that the court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury a conversation in which Hoagland stated to William B. Hardy, Jr., that Muensch was as much to blame for the accident as Hardy. On this point the transcript shows the following:

"Q. Young Hardy took you home, didn't he? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have any conversation with him on the way home? A. I said a few words; yes, sir.

Q. Just tell what you told Hardy, please, sir? (Objected to by counsel for the plaintiffs. Objection sustained, to which the defendant by counsel excepted.)

Judge Haswell:

Counsel for defendant avows that, if the witness were permitted to answer the question he would say, and the same would be true, that on the way home he told young Hardy that it was as much the blame of the driver of the Muensch car that the accident occurred as it was Hardy's fault.

Mr Morris: We except to that because we don't think Hardy is going to say that.

Q. Who was present at this conversation? (Objected to by counsel for plaintiffs.)

The Court: He is a party; it is not necessary to lay the foundation. You can ask him anything he may have said to Hardy with reference to it. (To the ruling of the court, the plaintiffs by counsel excepted.)"

It will be observed that Hoagland was first asked if he did not have a conversation with young Hardy on his way home. He replied that he said a few words. He was then asked to state what he told Hardy. Whereupon the court sustained the objection evidently on the theory that the question was too general in character, and did not indicate that the alleged conversation which it was sought to elicit had reference to the accident. However,...