L. & N. R. Co. v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 28 April 1925 |
| Citation | 208 Ky. 692 |
| Parties | Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Roberts. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Railroads — Contributory Negligence of Automobile Driver in Emergency Held for Jury. — Contributory negligence of automobile driver, injured in collision, held for jury, notwithstanding automobile ran into train, in view of evidence that driver's view of train was obstructed and that it suddenly appeared without warning, placing him in position of imminent peril, requiring immediate action.
2. Damages — Verdict for More than $5,000.00 Held Excessive, where no Objective Symptoms of Injury or Evidence of their Permanency. — Where there were no objective symptoms of injury to plaintiff, causing tenderness of shoulder and spine, headaches, and nervousness, and none of physicians were able to say that his injuries were permanent, a verdict of more than $5,000.00 was excessive, as being result of passion or prejudice.
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court.
WILLIS & WILLIS, TODD & BEARD and WOODWARD, WARFIELD & DAWSON for appellant.
T.B. ROBERTS and BARRICKMAN & KALTENBACHER for appellee.
Reversing.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee for injuries to his person and his automobile.
The accident occurred at the point where the Christiansburg and Cropper turnpike crosses appellant's tracks about one-fourth of a mile west of Christiansburg. There was sufficient evidence of the unusually dangerous character of the crossing, and of appellant's failure to give the statutory signals, and to take such further precautions as the character of the crossing required, to authorize the submission of those questions to the jury. Notwithstanding this fact it is insisted that appellee is not entitled to recover because he drove his machine into the train which had reached the crossing. Cases of that kind may arise where no recovery may be had, but in this case appellee's evidence makes it impossible to reach such a conclusion as a matter of law. He says that because of the physical obstructions he was unable to see the train until he was about three feet from the track when it suddenly appeared. Had he put on the brake his car would have stopped on the track right in front of the engine. To avoid a collision he turned his car to the right when some portion of the engine, or one of the cars, struck the fender of his machine, and threw it against the embankment, and he was either thrown to the ground or jumped from...
To continue reading
Request your trial