Horton v. Herndon
| Decision Date | 20 March 1934 |
| Citation | 254 Ky. 86,70 S.W.2d 975 |
| Parties | HORTON v. HERNDON, and three other cases. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 29, 1934.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County.
Separate actions by William Herndon, suing by his next friend, by Zula Cook, by William Burden, and by Ira Huff against C. G Horton, which were tried together. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appealed, and the appeals were consolidated.
Judgments reversed, and causes remanded.
E. B Anderson and Carroll E. Byron, both of Owensboro, for appellant.
Clements & Clements and Ben D. Ringo, all of Owensboro, for appellees Cook, Herndon, and Burden.
O. L Fowler and Cary, Miller & Kirk, all of Owensboro, for appellee Huff.
William Herndon, suing by his next friend, and Zula Cook, William Burden, and Ira Huff, brought separate actions against C. G. Horton to recover for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision. The cases were tried together, and William Herndon recovered $3,000, Zula Cook $4,000, William Burden $2,000, and Ira Huff $1,000. The appeals have been consolidated and will be considered in one opinion.
The accident happened about 1:30 on the afternoon of November 6, 1932. Horton, who was then a teacher in the high school at Livermore, and also the football coach, was driving a Ford two-door sedan. Just prior to his departure from Livermore he picked up William Herndon, Zula Cook, William Burden, and two other young people, for the purpose of taking them to the football game at Owensboro. While en route his car collided with a car driven by Ira Huff. According to Huff and others, Horton was driving about the middle of the road, and as he approached he kept veering to Huff's side of the road. Huff pulled off the asphalt with his right hind wheel close to the ditch, and blew his horn. When it looked like Horton was going to strike him, he let loose of the steering wheel and covered up his face with his hands. The nearer Horton approached, the faster he drove. Horton had all the rest of the road, and to have passed in safety it would have been necessary for him to have pulled to his right about three-fourths of his car width. According to Horton, Huff, after passing a car, started back for his own side of the road. He then swerved back and came down Horton's side of the road. As Huff came on, Horton kept crowding to the right. In order to avoid the ditch on the right, and keep from hitting Huff head on, Horton turned out toward the center. When Huff was about two car lengths away he tried to get over on his side and he got Horton's left front wheel. The marks showed that Huff was a foot and a half on Horton's side. After the accident Horton's car was sitting with the left front wheel over the center of the road, and the right front wheel was about the center. At the time of the accident Horton was traveling right around 40 miles an hour, and in his opinion Huff was traveling between 50 and 60 miles an hour. It is apparent from this résumé of the evidence that the evidence of Horton's negligence was not only sufficient to take the case to the jury, but to sustain the verdict.
The trial of the cases together is one of the principal grounds urged for a reversal. The rule is that, where there are several actions brought by different plaintiffs against one defendant, and the issues are the same in each, the court may try them together; but, where the issues in each are triable by jury, and there is objection by one of the parties, and the circumstances are such that their trial together would place the objecting party at a disadvantage, the court should not permit the actions to be tried together. Ruah Hirsch v. Warren, 253 Ky. 62, 68 S.W.2d 767. Here no one of the plaintiffs was incompetent as a witness for himself, as was the case in Benge's Adm'r v. Fouts, 163 Ky 796, 174 S.W. 510, and no one was incompetent as a witness for the others, as was the case in Sheetinger v. Dawson, 236 Ky. 571, 33 S.W.2d 609, and Ruah Hirsch v. A. F. Warren, supra. On the contrary, plaintiffs were all competent witnesses not only for themselves, but for each other, and could have testified for each other had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mondie v. Com., 2002-SC-0534-DG.
...v. Commonwealth, 40 S.W.3d 356, 368 (Ky.2000), cert. denied 534 U.S. 928, 122 S.Ct. 289, 151 L.Ed.2d 213 (2001). 35. Horton v. Herndon, 254 Ky. 86, 70 S.W.2d 975, 977 (1934); Couch v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 677, ___, 261 S.W. 7, 9 36. Evans v. Commonwealth, 230 Ky. 411, ___, 19 S.W.2d 1091, ......
-
Eggemeyer v. Jefferson
...which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Eggemeyer cites to this Court's previous opinion issued in Horton v. Herndon, 70 S.W.2d 975 (Ky. 1934), wherein we held that even a statement that "may" improperly influence the jury requires a new trial. The rule is that where an atto......
-
Big Rivers Elec. Corp. v. Barnes, No. 2002-CA-001164-MR.
...the error. Moreover, we take this opportunity to state that such conduct will not be tolerated. Our decision in Horton v. Herndon, 254 Ky. 86, 70 S.W.2d 975, 977 (1934), fairly states the law of Kentucky and we reaffirm our reliance "With the view of securing fairness in jury trials, we hav......
- Horton v. Herndon