Hawkins & Co. v. Riley
| Decision Date | 18 June 1856 |
| Citation | 56 Ky. 101 |
| Parties | Hawkins & Co. <I>vs.</I> Riley. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT.
Caperton and S. Turner for appellants —
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
C. F. Burnham and D. Breck for appellee —
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
This action was brought by Riley against Hawkins & Co., the proprietors, and Roswell, the driver, of a mail stage coach, running between Richmond and Lexington, for injuries alleged to have been done the plaintiff and his family, by the wanton, reckless and negligent conduct of the driver, in running the coach against and upsetting the buggy of of plaintiff, in which the latter and his wife and children were traveling upon the Richmond turnpike.
The answer of defendants put in issue all the material allegations of the petition, and set up in defense that the injury, if any, resulted from the fault of the plaintiff. Upon the trial below, the jury upon the evidence, and under the instructions of the court, returned a verdict for the plaintiff of two hundred and fifty dollars in damages, and a new trial having been moved and denied, the defendants have appealed.
It is complained here that the verdict is excessive, and not authorized by the evidence, and that the court erred to appellants' prejudice, in granting instructions at plaintiff's instance.
It appears from the bill of exceptions that Riley, with his wife and little children, was traveling in a buggy on the turnpike towards Richmond, some little distance in advance of the coach, which was proceeding in the same direction; and desiring, for some purpose, to stop, drew up on the right of the turnpike, next to the outer edge of the road, leaving the coach to pass on the left. In passing, or attempting to pass the buggy, the collision between the vehicles occurred — the wheels of the buggy next the coach were crushed — the buggy was upset, and the other injuries complained of ensued. The occupants of the buggy were greatly alarmed, and some of the children slightly injured.
The question of fact, mainly controverted, was whether the collision was occasioned by the recklessness and negligence of the driver of the coach, or by the fault of the plaintiff in suddenly stopping in advance of the coach. Upon this point the evidence was contradictory — the witnesses on either side varying in their statements of facts, and also in their opinions as to the culpability of the driver.
Without discussing the merits of the evidence, which it was peculiarly the province of the jury to determine, we shall proceed to notice the instructions complained of.
The circuit court, at the instance of plaintiff, instructed the jury — 1st. "If the jury believe, from the evidence, that Roswell, as the servant of the other defendants, drove his stage coach in and upon the buggy of the plaintiff, then the law is for the plaintiff, and the jury should so find, unless they believe that such injury was wholly unavoidable, or was superinduced by the misconduct of the plaintiff himself; and in finding for plaintiff they must give him the actual injury sustained, and may give exemplary damages at their discretion."
2d. "That any negligence, inattention, or want of proper care on the part of the defendant Roswell, in driving, fixes the liability upon the part of himself and his employers, and the jury have the right to weigh all the facts in evidence as bearing upon the question of such negligence, inattention or want of proper care."
3d. "The fact that the United States mail was carried in said stage coach did not entitle the defendants to all the road; and if plaintiff's buggy was so situated at the time of the collision that the stage coach had room, with careful driving, to pass him in overtaking the buggy, by bearing to the left, then the defendants are liable in this action, if their coach did, in fact, run into and upon the buggy of plaintiff; provided the buggy, prior to and at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keck v. Wacker
...Farms as the agent to keep records on his mare. See, e. g., Smith's Adm'r v. Middleton, 112 Ky. 588, 66 S.W. 388 (1902); Hawkins & Co. v. Riley, 56 Ky. 101 (1856). The defendants are not entitled to attorneys' fees, since they are not to be granted in the absence of a statute authorizing th......