Vaughn v. Jones
| Decision Date | 01 May 1953 |
| Parties | VAUGHN v. JONES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Waller, Threlkeld & Whitlow, Paducah, for appellant.
David R. Reed, Paducah, for appellee.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
The appellant, Herbert Vaughn, sued the appellee, James Jones, for $500 for damages to his automobile. Jones counterclaimed for $150 damages to his car. The verdict and judgment are for $100 in favor of Jones. The only ground submitted for a reversal of the judgment is that the appellant was entitled to a directed verdict. The case is rare since there was no contradiction in the evidence in its material aspects.
The appellant's son, Herbert Vaughn, Jr., was driving his father's car northwardly on U. S. highway No. 45 through the village of Lone Oak at 35 or 40 miles per hour while perhaps a hundred feet from the intersection of Friendship Road, a secondary highway. There was a blinker caution signal overhead and a stop sign on the side road as it entered the highway from the east. Vaughn slowed down as he saw Jones approaching the intersection. Jones came to a complete stop as he was required to do by KRS 189.330(4). Vaughn testified Jones looked in his direction, then the other way and then pulled out into the highway in front of him. He applied his brakes and swerved to the left in order to avoid a collision. His car slipped on loose gravel and the front right of Vaughn's car and the left front fender of Jones' car collided.
Jones testified that he stopped before entering the main highway and 'looked to the left and there was nothing coming.' He then looked to his right and waited for some cars coming in that direction to pass. Then, said he, 'I looked back to the left and started across, he hit me, I never did see where he come from.' The highway was straight and Jones admitted having an unobstructed view for about 250 feet to where there was a parked truck. He does not claim Vaughn was traveling at an unreasonable speed, and the fact that Jones' car was 'knocked about three feet' with minor damage shows he was not.
Thus, it appears that Jones moved out into the highway after looking in the direction from which Vaughn was coming when it was 'approaching so closely on the highway as to constitute an immediate hazard'. KRS 189.330(4). It was not sufficient that he should have stopped. He should have yielded the right-of-way by not proceeding into the highway. KRS 189.330(4). Vaughn could assume, under the circumstances, that Jones would conform to the law and remain where he was until the way was reasonably clear and could act upon that assumption in determining his own manner of using the road. Short v. Robinson, 280 Ky. 707, 134 S.W.2d 594. The only excuse Jones offers is that he did not see the Vaughn car. We have said that testimony that one looked and did not see a train that was right on him was entitled to no reasonable credence; that 'he will not be heard to say that he looked but did not see' it. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Stagner, 305 Ky. 717, 205 S.W.2d 493; McCarter v. L. & N. R. Co., 314 Ky. 697, 236 S.W.2d 933. Sometimes maybe failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFall v. Tooke
...have seen had he looked. Jordan v. Clough, 313 S.W.2d 581 (Ky., 1958); Severance v. Sohan, 347 S.W.2d 498 (Ky., 1961); Vaughn v. Jones, 257 S.W.2d 583 (Ky., 1953). We do not depart from this general rule in our While there is an occasional reference in the Kentucky decisions to a pedestrian......
-
Webb Transfer Lines, Inc. v. Taylor
...or failed to see Brumbach's car, which must have been very close and in plain sight. In either event Day was negligent. 'In Vaughn v. Jones, Ky., 1953, 257 S.W.2d 583, it was "Thus, it appears that Jones moved out into the highway after looking in the direction from which Vaughn was coming ......
-
Kerr v. Mills
...607, 96 P.2d 583 (1939); Arline v. Alexander, 2 So.2d 710 (La.App.1941); Couch v. Hensley, 305 S.W.2d 765 (Ky.App.1957); Vaughn v. Jones, 257 S.W.2d 583 (Ky.App.1953); cf. Asher v. Fox, 134 F.Supp. 27 (E.D.Ky.1955); cf. Meyer v. Platte Valley Const. Co., 147 Neb. 860, 25 N.E.2d 412 (1946); ......
-
Goetz v. Green River Rural Elec. Co-op. Corp.
...is not due to any surrounding circumstances does not excuse inattention to a known danger or one that should have been seen. Vaughn v. Jones, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 583; Farris v. Summerour, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 708. The danger inherent in power lines and electric lines generally needs no elaboration. ......