South Covington & Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. Ware
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 39 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court erred in assuming, in its instructions to the jury, that it was-negligence to leave the brake unattended, instead of leaving it to the jury to determine, under all the circumstances, whether or not it was-negligence. 2. It was error to instruct the jury that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence if, “through fright or bewilderment.” he became-incapable of choosing the safest course…
Read the full summary
Case 39 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court erred in assuming, in its instructions to the jury, that it was-negligence to leave the brake unattended, instead of leaving it to the jury to determine, under all the circumstances, whether or not it was-negligence. 2. It was error to instruct the jury that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence if, “through fright or bewilderment.” he became-incapable of choosing the safest course to pursue. The passenger who leaps from a vehicle in motion to avoid an accident must be under reasonable apprehension,…
1Opinion of the Court
.JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion op the court.
The right of a person to recover damages for a personal injury is not affected by his having contributed to it, unless he was in fault in so doing. He may indeed not only contribute to it, but be the immediate cause of it, and yet recover. Thus, if a passenger, under a reasonable apprehension that, a ■collision or other accident is imminent, changes his position to one in fact more dangerous, or even leaps from the vehicle while in motion, yet he may recover •damages if he be injured; and this is true even though it may afterward appear that if he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stokes v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Frink v. PotterIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by24 opinions
- Mellor v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Louisville & N. Railroad v. Molloy's Admx.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad v. HolcombIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Baker v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Cumberland Tel'p & Tel'g Co. v. OverfieldCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.