White Swan Laundry v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 05 February 1926
• Citation: 212 Ky. 747
• Parties: White Swan Laundry v. Boyd.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

212 Ky. 747

White Swan Laundry v. Boyd.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided February 5, 1926.

1. Automobiles — Automobile Driver Held Not Contributorily Negligent in Looking Only to Right. — Automobile driver approaching street intersection held not chargeable with contributory negligence

because he looked only to the right until just before reaching center of cross street, when collision with truck, which had come from opposite direction, and was making a complete left-hand turn at intersection, was unavoidable.

2. Automobiles — Instruction on Necessity for Signals of Movement of Truck Held Erroneous. — In action for damages from collision of truck and automobile at street intersection, instruction that it was duty of defendant to give reasonably timely signals of the movement of its trucks by the usual or customary signal, held erroneous, in view of Ky. Stats., section 2739g-28, requiring only that signals be given whenever necessary and not every time vehicle is moved.

3. Automobiles — Instruction in Action for Damages from Automobile Collision Held Not Erroneous as Based on Inapplicable Statute. — In action for damages for collision between truck attempting to make a complete left-hand turn at street intersection with car coming from opposite direction on same street, instructions based on Ky. Stats., section 2739g-37, held not erroneous on theory that such statutes apply only where automobiles approach on courses at right angle to each other; such being position of cars at time of collision.

4. Trial — First of Two Instructions Submitting Opposing Theories Held Not Erroneous for Want of Reference to Opposing Theory. — In action for damages from automobile collision, where court submitted plaintiff's theory in instruction 1, and defendant's theory in instruction 2, instruction 1 was not erroneous for failure to conclude with words "unless you believe as in instruction 2, in which case you should find for defendant."

Appeal from Boyd Circuit Court.

JOHN W. WOODS for appellant.

O.N. CISCO, A.T. BRYSON and LEVI & BRYSON for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DRURY, COMMISSIONER.

Reversing.

Appellant, whom we will call defendant, is seeking to reverse a judgment for $551.60 recovered against appellant by the plaintiff or appellee, for damages done to his automobile in a collision with defendant's car. This collision occurred at the intersection or crossing of 20th street and Greenup avenue in Ashland, Kentucky. This street is 32 feet wide and runs north and south. Greenup avenue is an east and west street, which crosses 20th street at right angles. East of 20th street it is 30 feet wide. West thereof it is 78 feet in width.

Near noon, on August 29, 1922, plaintiff was driving a five passenger Studebaker touring car, west on Greenup avenue and when he was about half way across 20th street defendant's laundry truck collided with his car with such force that plaintiff was knocked from the steering wheel and the touring car was so swerved from its course that it climbed the north curb, ran into a tree, and was pretty well demolished. The repairing of the Studebaker car cost $551.65. The proof showed it was worth $1,000.00 before the collision and $200.00 after the collision. As usual in automobile collisions, there was sharp conflict in the evidence as to the cause. The driver of defendant's truck had been driving east along the south side of Greenup avenue, and when he got to 20th street, started to turn around to go west. On account of the great width of Greenup avenue at the west of 20th street, he could easily turn there, and if he had noticed what he was doing, could have safely done so. He says he was driving in low gear, and looking out for other cars. Other witnesses say he was driving fast (one witness says 40 or 50 miles per hour) and was not looking where he was going, but was looking back at something or some one. Neither driver saw the other until the collision was so imminent as to be unavoidable. Plaintiff says he was looking north on 20th street, to see if a car was approaching from his right. He says he had not reached the center of the...