Paust v. Whiteside Bakery Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1927 |
| Citation | 221 Ky. 505 |
| Parties | Paust v. Whiteside Bakery Company, Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Appeal and Error. — Where there is evidence that one person is responsible for injury of another by reason of negligence, and evidence tending to show that the injury was caused by reason of the negligence of the person injured, question of liability becomes one for jury, whose verdict will not be set aside and judgment of appellate court substituted.
2. Trial. — In action for injuries from slipping on private driveway, it was not abuse of discretion, under Civil Code of Practice sec. 318, for court to permit jury to view the place of the accident, though conditions at the time of trial were not the same as at the time of the accident.
3. Appeal and Error. — Question whether jury will be allowed to view premises, under Civil Code of Practice, sec. 318, is addressed to discretion of trial judge, whose action will not be interfered with, in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.
W.A. SPINDLE for appellant.
R.L. PAGE for appellee.
Affirming.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee and appellant insists that the verdict would have been in his favor but for errors committed by the trial judge.
Appellant was engaged with his partner, George Adams, in the operation of a cafeteria in the hotel building located at the northeast corner of Tenth and Broadway in the city of Louisville. Appelleee had a bakery plant located at the southwest corner of Fourteenth and Broadway. Appellant and his partner were customers of appellee and had been for a number of years preceding the date of the injury sustained by him at the place of business of appellee. It was the custom of appellee to have its wagon call at appellant's place of business to take orders. These calls were made daily. If the supply of bread was exhausted during the day, either he or his partner made a trip to the plant of appellee to obtain an additional supply. On the day of the injury there was an unusual demand for bread about the noon hour at the cafeteria of appellant, and he, in company with the young son of his partner, made a trip to the plant of appellee to get an additional supply. The plant had two entrances, one leading into the bakery plant, which entrance was located about the center of the building on Broadway, and the other leading into the driveway at the west side of the building on Broadway. At the time of the injury the driveway ran through the building along its west wall to an alley in the rear, a distance of about 150 feet. There was also an entrance to the driveway from the rear. Along the west wall near the roof were a number of small windows admitting light and for a part of the distance of the driveway there were small windows on the east side of the driveway. To the left of this driveway there was a loading and unloading platform about 8 or 10 feet wide, and about the height of a wagon. It led from the front entrance towards the rear about 30 feet, and from this platform there was a door leading into the bakery proper. Extending beyond the loading platform along the east side of the driveway there was a smaller platform one or two feet wide about the same height as the larger platform, and from this smaller platform there was a flight of steps leading to the floor at the point where the two platforms met. The driveway was paved with vitrified brick. It was in constant use day and night by the employees of appellee and the customers of appellee used the driveway at times, as well as those having business with appellee in delivering and collecting parcels.
Appellant had used both entrances and on the occasion when he was injured he drove his truck to the driveway entrance with the intention of driving in He found a wagon belonging to appellee occupying the entrance, and, as he could not drive in, he parked his car on the street just at the edge of the approach, and went into the driveway on foot, and got up to the loading platform by stepping on the hub of a wagon wheel. He obtained his supply of bread and came out of the second door leading to the bakery,...
To continue reading
Request your trial