Smith's Adm'r v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1924
• Citation: 202 Ky. 706,261 S.W. 245
• Parties: SMITH'S ADM'R v. FORD MOTOR CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

261 S.W. 245

202 Ky. 706

SMITH'S ADM'R v. FORD MOTOR CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 22, 1924

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

Action by William P. Smith's administrator de bonis non against the Ford Motor Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Morton K. Yonts and M. H. Thatcher, both of Louisville, for appellant.

Humphrey Crawford & Middleton, of Louisville, for appellee.

CLAY J.

The Hippodrome Motor Company of Nashville, Tenn., purchased five Ford automobiles from the assembly plant of the Ford Motor Company at Louisville, and employed William P. Smith and four other men to drive the cars from Louisville to Nashville. While en route the car driven by Smith was overturned, and he was killed. Thereupon his administrator brought this suit for damages. The jury found for the Ford Motor Company, and plaintiff has appealed.

It was appellant's contention that the accident was caused by the bursting of a tire upon one of the rear wheels, and that the bursting was due to a defective condition of the casing and evidence was offered in support of this theory. On the other hand, appellee's evidence tended to show that the car was being driven at a dangerous rate of speed over a rough road at midnight, and that Smith took one of his hands off the steering wheel and his eyes off the road in front of him and thereby lost control of the car.

In addition to other instructions not material, the court instructed the jury as follows:

"(1) It was the duty of the defendant, the Ford Motor Company, in delivering the machine to the deceased, William P. Smith, as agent for the Hippodrome Company, to exercise ordinary care to see that the casings on the wheels of the machine were not in a defective and dangerous condition, and, if you believe from the evidence at the time the said machine was turned over to Smith the casing on one of the rear wheels was in a defective and dangerous condition and such condition was known to the defendant, Ford Motor Company, or could have been known to it by the exercise of ordinary care, and by reason of such defective and dangerous condition, if it existed, the said automobile while being driven by Smith was caused to overturn, and he lost his life as a result thereof, then the law of the case is for the plaintiff, William P. Smith's administrator, and you should so find. But, unless you so believe, the law of the case is for the defendant, the Ford Motor Company, and you should so find.

(2) It was the duty of William P. Smith, in driving said machine, to run the same at a reasonable rate of speed, to keep it under reasonable control, and to exercise ordinary care to so manage and operate the machine as to avoid injury to himself and, if you believe from the evidence he failed in said duties, or any of them, and his failure, if any, caused or so contributed to cause the overturning of the...