Neal v. Ashland-Ironton Transfer & Ferry Co.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1923 |
| Citation | 256 S.W. 721,201 Ky. 332 |
| Parties | NEAL v. ASHLAND-IRONTON TRANSFER & FERRY CO. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Boyd County.
Suit by Irene Neal against the Ashland-Ironton Transfer & Ferry Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Waugh & Howerton, of Ashland, for appellant.
Martin & Smith, of Catlettsburg, for appellee.
Appellee operates a ferry boat between Ashland and points across the river in Ohio. Appellant, a young married woman and a resident of Ashland, in October, 1920, was returning from a visit to relatives at Ironton, when she was injured just at the landing at Ashland, and this suit for damages was instituted by her because of the alleged negligence of defendant.
The negligence complained of is that defendant carelessly and negligently ran the front end of its ferry boat against a float or platform which it had provided for the use of its passengers, but before the rear end of the boat had come in contact with the said float defendant drew its rails or opened its passageway, and invited its passengers to leave the boat and step from the boat to the float; that when she was so invited to step from the boat to the platform there was a distance of several inches between the boat and the platform, and in attempting to step from the one to the other she stepped into the open space between them, whereby she was thrown between the boat and the platform and injured.
The answer was a traverse and a plea of contributory negligence and upon the trial, at the conclusion of all the evidence the court directed a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered.
The admitted facts are that about dusk the boat approached the landing at Ashland, heading up stream, so that when the landing was effectuated the side of the boat where the exit was made by passengers would be right alongside of the float or platform; that there were on the side of the boat, about 12 or 14 feet apart, two posts through which the exit was made, and that the same distance apart on the float were two other posts called check posts, and to these two posts on the float or platform were fastened by chains the two posts on the boat, and then for the first time passengers were supposed to alight. On the occasion in question, while the boat was still a few feet from the float or platform, as was customary, one of the employees pulled back the iron bar which ran between the two posts on the boat designed to protect the passengers, and jumped from the boat to the float with his chain for the purpose of tying up to what is called the upper check post on the float; just afterwards another employee pulled the iron bar back further, and, as plaintiff says, the whole way, and stepped from the boat to the float so as to fasten his chain to the lower check post. As soon as the two employees stepped across the narrow space between the boat and the float, several passengers also stepped across and appellant, who had a two year child with her, and a valise, picked up her child in one arm, and with her valise in the other hand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFall v. Tooke
...own negligence was a contributing proximate cause of the injury. Eichstadt v. Underwood, supra; Neal v. Ashland-Ironton Transfer & Ferry Co., 201 Ky. 332, 256 S.W. 721 (1923). In meeting his burden on such issue, the defendant may rely on plaintiff's own description of his conduct. If, howe......
-
Baird v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.
...proximate cause of the injury." McFall v. Tooke, supra, 308 F.2d at 621; Eichstadt v. Underwood, supra; Neal v. Ashland-Ironton Transfer & Ferry Co., 201 Ky. 332, 256 S.W. 721. What are the applicable "standards of conduct" exacted by Kentucky law? The rigid "stop, look and listen rule" doe......
-
Eichstadt v. Underwood
...one fair and reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the evidence that a directed verdict should be given. Neal v. Ashland-Ironton Transfer & Ferry Co., 201 Ky. 332, 256 S.W. 721. Appellants insist that appellee did not exercise ordinary care in that she not only failed to observe approachi......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Welsh
...and unnecessarily disregarded the ordinary rules of prudence. "As said by this court in the case of Neal v. Ashland-Ironton Transfer & Ferry Co., 201 Ky. 332, 256 S.W. 721: "`It is true that generally speaking the question of contributory negligence is one for the jury, but where all the ma......