Turner v. Johnson

Decision Date25 March 1960
Citation333 S.W.2d 749
PartiesBess TURNER, Appellant, v. Frances JOHNSON, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Ollie James Cockrell, Jackson, Earl B. Rose, Beattyville, for appellant.

J. Douglas Graham, Campton, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, Chief Justice.

Frances Johnson recovered a judgment for $5,128 against Bess Turner as compensation for injuries received from the overturn of a car. Bess Turner insists on appeal that: (1) The jury should have been peremptorily instructed to find for her; and (2) the verdict is excessive.

Appellant purchased a new car from the Dodge and Plymouth agency in Jackson. Appellee was the wife of one of the owners of the agency. Just before the purchase of the car in April 1955, appellee's husband had given appellant three or four driving lessons. Appellant had a temporary license and permit but had not received her operator's license. She said that appellee's husband had promised that she would be taught to drive. A day or two before the accident, appellee had accompanied appellant on a drive to Kragon, Kentucky, and back. It is not clear whether this was a driving lesson or a new car demonstration.

Appellee delivered the new car to appellant at her place of employment. Appellant insists that appellee was to give her further driving instruction. Appellee denied that she was or had been teaching appellant to drive. Mrs. Turner took the wheel to go by her home and pick up her husband and then to drive appelle to her husband's garage. Appellee testified that she had observed nothing wrong with appellant's driving prior to the accident. As they proceeded north on Main Street in Jackson, appellant stopped the car for a stop sign in front of the courthouse. She described the mishap thusly:

'When we pulled up and stopped for just a second and I pulled around and I said, 'How did I do?' and she said 'All right but you are over in the other fellow's lane of traffic too much. Pull over a little,' and the next thing I knew it hit the side wall and I don't recall her saying anything else. That's all I knew.'

Appellee's version is that as appellant was making the turn, she (appellee) said, 'Cut it back a little.' Asked what happened then, she replied, 'It all happened so fast I really don't know.' The car struck the courthouse yard wall and turned over. Both women were stunned and shocked.

After all the proof was in, appellant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that appellee knew appellant to be an inexperienced driver and thereby assumed the risk of riding with her. The motion was overruled.

The evidence was in conflict as to whether appellee had assisted appellant in learning to drive and had knowledge of appellant's inexperience as a driver. Such being the case, it was proper to deny the motion for a directed verdict and to permit the jury to resolve the issue, which it did with a verdict for the appellee.

The jury awarded $5,000 as compensation for the pain and auffering sustained and to be sustained in the future as a result of the injuries received by appellee and $128 for her medical expenses. The $5,000 award is questioned as being excessive.

The history of the medical attention given and the activities of appellee is interesting. On the day of the accident in April 1955, appellee was examined by Dr. Pryce Sewell, Jr., a local physician, in his office. He found her to be in severe shock and extremely nervous. She complained of severe pain in her left hip and back. There was a large bruise on the left hip. There is no mention of any complaint concerning the neck or head at that time. Dr. Sewell X-rayed the patient's hip and low back, with negative results so far as any bone injuries were concerned. This was the only medical attention, other than a sedative, rendered by him.

According to appellee, she lost one day at that time from teaching school. During the summer following, she attended graduate school in New York City and concluded her summer's activities with a motor tour of New England, traveling about 1,500 miles. She returned to teaching school in the fall. She continued to do her housework. Meanwhile between the accident and time of trial, she had a baby. She said that she missed performing her regular duties for a total of six weeks or two months during this period, which she attributed to her injuries. The dates are not shown.

On the trial, appellee complained of being extremely nervous and of suffering from pains...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Chalmers v. Willis
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 5 July 1967
    ...the injured passenger was merely accompanying the driver to satisfy a statutory requirement and was not giving instruction. Turner v. Johnson (Ky.), 333 S.W.2d 749; Jennings v. Hodges, 80 S.D. 582, 129 N.W.2d 59; Roberts v. Craig (Cal.), 268 P.2d 500. One explanation for the distinction whi......
  • Borders v. Borders
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 6 March 1964
    ...from loss and loosening of teeth. The verdict of $8,000 for these elements of damage strikes us as being excessive. Cf. Turner v. Johnson, Ky., 333 S.W.2d 749; Herald v. Gross, Ky., 343 S.W.2d We are reversing the judgment because of excessive damages. We believe that the issue of liability......
  • Bowling v. Brunk
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 13 December 1963
    ...MONTGOMERY, Judge (dissenting). Under the authority of Commercial Carriers, Inc. v. Matracia, Ky., 311 S.W.2d 565, and Turner v. Johnson, Ky., 333 S.W.2d 749, and the cases cited therein, I am compelled to dissent. I feel that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the award of $5,000 dama......
  • Gluck Bros., Inc. v. Kreke
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 13 October 1961
    ...shown. Consequently, we hold that the damages are so excessive as to require a reversal of the judgment in her favor. Turner v. Johnson, Ky., 333 S.W.2d 749; Berio v. Talley, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 185; Louisville Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Langley, Ky., 265 S.W.2d We are affirming the judgment in ......

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