Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtCLAY, C.
Citation172 S.W. 970,162 Ky. 560
Decision Date05 February 1915
PartiesLOUISVILLE RY. CO. v. KENNEDY.

172 S.W. 970

162 Ky. 560

LOUISVILLE RY. CO.
v.
KENNEDY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 5, 1915


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

Action by Blanche Kennedy against the Louisville Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank P. Straus, Howard B. Lee, and Alfred Selligman, all of Louisville, for appellant.

O'Doherty & Yonts, of Louisville, for appellee.

CLAY, C.

This is a personal injury case, in which plaintiff, Blanche Kennedy, recovered of the defendant, Louisville Railway Company, a judgment for $800. The railway company appeals.

Refusal to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, and error in one of the instructions, are relied on as grounds for a reversal.

The facts are these: On July 8, 1913, plaintiff was a passenger on a west-bound Bardstown Road car, which was moving on the north side of Jefferson street along one of two parallel tracks. When the car reached the northeast corner of Jefferson and Third streets, it stopped for the purpose of permitting passengers to alight. Plaintiff got off at this point, and, passing around the rear end of the car, started to cross the parallel track for the purpose of reaching the opposite side of the street. When she reached the parallel track, she was struck and injured by a Fourth street car then being operated on the Second street line. There is substantial evidence to the effect that the Fourth street car was being operated at a high rate of speed, and that no warning of its approach was given.

It is insisted that, because plaintiff did not look at the approaching Fourth street car before she stepped on the parallel track, she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It may be conceded that, while a different rule formerly prevailed, a number of the courts now make no distinction between steam railroads and street railroads with respect to the obligation of the pedestrian to look for an approaching car, because they say the danger from stepping on street car tracks where the cars are run by electricity and at a rapid rate and with greater frequency, is quite as great as the danger from stepping on steam railroad tracks, where the cars do not run so often; and common prudence requires that the care on the part of the pedestrian shall be increased in proportion to the dangers to be apprehended; and they therefore hold that a person who, upon alighting from a street car, passes around the rear end of the car without looking for a car approaching from the opposite direction on the parallel track, and is struck by such car and killed or injured, is guilty of contributory negligence which will defeat a recovery for the injury. Creamer v. West End St. R. Co., 156 Mass. 320, 31 N.E. 391, 16 L.R.A. 490, 32 Am.St.Rep. 456; Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 12 S.W. 804, 13 S.W. 587, 7 L.R.A. 819, 18 Am.St.Rep. 541; Hornstein v. United R. Co., 195 Mo. 440, 92 S.W. 884, 4 L.R.A. (N. S.) 729, and note, 113 Am.St.Rep. 693, 6 Ann.Cas. 699, and note; Eagen v. Jersey City, etc., R. Co., 74 N. J. Law, 699, 67 A. 24, 11 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1058, 12 Ann.Cas. 911, and note; Yersack v. Lackawanna, etc., R. Co., 221 Pa. [172 S.W. 971]

493, 70 A. 837, 18 L.R.A. (N. S.) 519, 128 Am.St.Rep. 746. In other jurisdictions, however, a different rule prevails, and it is held that a failure to look does not bar a recovery; but the question of contributory negligence is for the jury. Chicago City R. Co. v. Robinson, 127 Ill. 9, 18 N.E. 772,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Twyman v. Monongahela West Penn Pub. Serv. Co, No. 8480.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 9, 1937
    ...of the danger to which the passenger was exposed and failed to give warning of such danger. In the case of Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. 970, Ann.Cas. 1916E, 996, the injury occurred as a result of the plaintiff being struck by an agency of the carrier, where it was c......
  • Louisville Railway Co. v. Breeden
    • United States
    • Kentucky Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1934
    ...that degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like or similar circumstances. Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. 970, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 996. While the duty was upon Breeden, under this general rule, to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, y......
  • Louisville Ry. Co. v. Allen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • December 21, 1951
    ...Co., 241 Ky. 144, 43 S.W.2d 507; or has had a reasonable opportunity to reach a place of safety, Louisville Page 446 Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. However, we are of the opinion that these statements of the law are not applicable here, even though the appellee had safely alighte......
  • Louisville Ry. Co. v. Breeden
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • December 21, 1934
    ...that degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like or similar circumstances. Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. 970, Ann.Cas. 1916E, 996. While the duty was upon Breeden, under this general rule, to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, ye......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Twyman v. Monongahela West Penn Pub. Serv. Co, No. 8480.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 9, 1937
    ...of the danger to which the passenger was exposed and failed to give warning of such danger. In the case of Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. 970, Ann.Cas. 1916E, 996, the injury occurred as a result of the plaintiff being struck by an agency of the carrier, where it was c......
  • Louisville Railway Co. v. Breeden
    • United States
    • Kentucky Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1934
    ...that degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like or similar circumstances. Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. 970, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 996. While the duty was upon Breeden, under this general rule, to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, y......
  • Louisville Ry. Co. v. Allen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • December 21, 1951
    ...Co., 241 Ky. 144, 43 S.W.2d 507; or has had a reasonable opportunity to reach a place of safety, Louisville Page 446 Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. However, we are of the opinion that these statements of the law are not applicable here, even though the appellee had safely alighte......
  • Louisville Ry. Co. v. Breeden
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • December 21, 1934
    ...that degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like or similar circumstances. Louisville Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 S.W. 970, Ann.Cas. 1916E, 996. While the duty was upon Breeden, under this general rule, to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, ye......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT