Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 18 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE LAW AND EQUITY COURT. 1. The evidence of the plaintiff, and the entire evidence, showed that the recklessness and negligence of plaintiff Tierney, contributed to cause the accident; and, therefore, a peremptory instruction against him should have been given.
Read the full summary
Case 18 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE LAW AND EQUITY COURT. 1. The evidence of the plaintiff, and the entire evidence, showed that the recklessness and negligence of plaintiff Tierney, contributed to cause the accident; and, therefore, a peremptory instruction against him should have been given. (Rupard v. Chesapeake & Ohio R., 88 Ky., 280.) 2. The damages sustained by Tierney were not the reasonably to be anticipated result of any negligence of the defendant; and were too remote in their connection with any negligence of defendant to cause a legal liability upon defendant.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion or the court.
This case is here for the second time, and the opinion reversing the judgment of the lower court is found reported in 92 Ky., 367. The main ground of reversal *93was on account of the damages being excessive, and this court, without attempting to establish any fixed rule as to the amount of damages to be recovered for compensation in this character of case, and having no power to do so, said, in plain and unmistakable terms, that a verdict for twenty five thousand dollars could not be sustained, and, in discussing this branch of the case, made it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Standard Oil Co. v. TierneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. CreightonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899