J.N. Youngblood Truck Lines v. Hatfield
| Citation | 304 Ky. 600 |
| Parties | J.N. Youngblood Truck Lines v. Hatfield. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1947 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Appeal and Error. — Jury's verdict, if supported by the evidence, could not be disturbed.
2. Automobiles. — In action by motorist for injuries sustained in head-on collision with truck, on ground that truck was partially on wrong side of highway, negligence of parties was for jury.
3. Pleading. — Allegation in answer that defendant denied each and every allegation contained in petition relative to any negligence or liability of defendant, was a denial of allegations concerning amount of damages sustained by plaintiff. Civil Code of Practice, sec. 113.
4. Appeal and Error. — Where parties treated allegations of petition as at issue, and plaintiff did not raise in Circuit Court at proper time alleged fact that defendant's answer did not deny plaintiff's allegations as to amount of damages, question was waived by plaintiff.
5. Appeal and Error. — A verdict of $23,700, the full amount claimed, to 31 year old miner for damage to automobile and injuries consisting of broken collar bone and crushed leg that left him from 60 to 75 per cent. permanently and totally disabled, must be reversed, where jury allowed at least $175 more for damage to automobile than evidence warranted and $30 more for medical expenses than evidence warranted, since excess could not be cured under rule of de minimis non curat lex.
6. Evidence. — In action by motorist against owner of truck for injuries and damage to automobile as result of head-on collision, testimony of witness that immediately after collision truck driver stated that he thought plaintiff was going to make a left turn and that truck driver started to pull around to miss plaintiff on the left side, was properly admitted as part of the res gestae.
7. Evidence. — Ordinarily, the admissions of an agent are not admissible against his principal, but where such statements form a part of the res gestae, the rule is different and such statements may be admitted.
8. Trial. — In action by motorist for damage sustained in collision with truck, evidence that defendant's home was in another state, and that it operated a large fleet of trucks over highways of Kentucky, was improper, where defendant's pleading admitted ownership of truck involved in accident, since it tended to excite the prejudice of the jury.
Appeal from Bell Circuit Court.
Golden & Lay for appellant.
Hubert F. White and R.L. Pope for appellee.
Before James S. Forester, Judge.
Reversing.
On the 16th day of November 1944, Lee Hatfield was severely injured in a collision of an automobile, which he was driving, with a truck belonging to appellant. The accident occurred on U.S. 25-E between Middlesboro and Pineville. The Hatfield car was being driven north toward Pineville and the truck south toward Middlesboro. Each party claims the other was on the wrong side of the road.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hatfield in the sum of $23,700, which was the full amount claimed. Appellant relies on four grounds for reversal.
1. That its motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained.
2. The damages are excessive and the verdict resulted from passion and prejudice.
3. The instructions given were erroneous and prejudicial.
4. The court permitted the introduction of incompetent evidence.
1. The accident occurred about 6 o'clock p.m. on Saturday. The night before Hatfield had worked at the mine where he was employed and had slept until about 11:30 a.m. He ate his dinner and visited an uncle in the neighborhood, returning home about 4 or 5 o'clock p.m. He then left his home in his automobile to get a girl to stay with his wife. On the way to get this girl he stopped at a beer garden called "Pratt's," which is located on the west side of highway 25-E, and purchased two bottles of beer. He drank one bottle and at least one-half of the second bottle, but did not drink all of it. He was in the beer garden about fifteen or twenty minutes. He then stopped at a filling station in front of the beer garden for the purpose of getting his car serviced, and then drove on to the highway, crossing it for the purpose of driving north toward Pineville. His lights were on and he was traveling in second gear at the time of the collision. On the same side of the highway as Pratt's, and 447 feet from it, there is a tourist camp known as Sharp's Court. Most of the witnesses agree that the accident occurred approximately 50 feet south of Sharp's Court. This portion of the highway is straight, but there is a hill some 300 feet toward Pineville from the scene of the accident. Hatfield says that as he crossed the highway he saw the lights of the truck coming over the top of the hill and that as it came closer it seemed to be on the wrong side of the road. He estimates the speed of the truck at about 40 or 50 miles per hour. He further states that when he realized the truck was going to hit him he put on his brakes and had come to a stop when he was struck. The truck hit his left front fender and wheel, tearing off the left door and running board. He further states that when the truck struck his car it was about 3 1/2 or 4 feet on the wrong side of the white center line of the highway.
The surfaced portion of the highway at the point of collision is 22 feet wide, and there is a 30 foot parking area in front of the tourist camp.
The truck driver testified he had been driving a truck for about eleven years and had been working for the appellant about six years. He started from Louisville about 11 or 11:30 a.m. In describing the manner in which the accident happened he said there is a "little flat" before reaching the hill, which is close to the tourist camp, and because he was behind a car in this flat he had to check his speed and shift into third gear to pull the hill. The tractor which he was driving had a five forward speed transmission. He says that in third gear it travels about 12 miles an hour; that when he reached the top of the hill he changed to fourth gear and increased his speed to about 18 miles an hour, and then further increased his speed to about 25 miles per hour when he changed to the fifth, or last, gear. About this time he saw the Hatfield car pull out from the filling station at Pratt's. He said Hatfield crossed over to his own side of the road and that he continued to increase his speed until he got within about 100 yards of the car when he saw that the automobile was close to the white line. The car came closer to the white line as it approached him. He took his foot off the accelerator and placed it on the brake, but while he held his foot on the brake he did not push the pedal in until he saw the car come over on his side of the road, when he slowed to about 18 miles per hour. He says the car kept getting closer and did not move back to its own side. He was then getting close to where cars were parked at the tourist camp, applied more pressure to the brake, slowing to about 12 miles an hour, and blew his horn. The Hatfield car attempted to pull back to its own side but it was too late and the car hit the left front of his truck. The impact broke the left front spring of the tractor and knocked the left front wheel against the running board, which caused the wheel to lock. This jerked the steering wheel out of his hands, causing the truck to careen over to the wrong side of the road. He admits that when the truck and car came to a standstill the left front of his truck was across the center line about four or five feet. He estimates the speed of the car at about 30 miles per hour.
The only other witness who testified that he actually saw the collision is a coal miner named Bill Redman who lives on the highway and is a friend of Hatfield's. He testified he was walking along the highway about 100 feet from Pratt's place and saw the cars collide; that they were both on Hatfield's side of the road. He says that when they collided the Hatfield car was 41" on the right side of the center line; that he measured the distance. He reached the wreck about one and one half minutes after it happened, saw the truck driver and heard him make the following statement: He further says that all of the truck except the right rear wheel of the trailer was across the center line of the highway and that the front end of the truck was some 60" over the center line. He estimates the speed of the Hatfield car at not over 20 miles an hour, and the speed of the truck at about 50 miles per hour; he says it looked to him like the truck cut straight across into the car, and that he heard no horn. He further says he saw the Hatfield car pull away from the filling station, heard the shift from low to second gear, and that he knows the car was in second gear at the time of the collision; when he reached the wreck he found the car still in second gear and turned off the lights and ignition as soon as he reached it.
Other witnesses testified for the plaintiff, but in the main their testimony relates to the position of the truck and automobile immediately after the collision. All the witnesses seem to agree that both vehicles were in Hatfield's lane at the time they reached the scene of the accident. Also it seems to be established that both north and southbound traffic had to be routed on the southbound lane of the highway because the wreck blocked the northbound lane.
H.F. White, an attorney, testified there was a scratch, or scar, in the asphalt about six or seven inches long, and that this mark was 41" from the center line of the highway in the northbound lane.
Appellant produced no eye witnesses except the truck driver, but argues that the undisputed evidence concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial