Arnett v. Hensley

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Arnett v. Hensley

273 S.W.2d 816, 1954 Ky. LEXIS 1203

Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided December 17, 1954·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming .the $600 judgment in favor of the appellee because we think (1) the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury; and (2) the instruction objected to. was not improper, [817] in view of the positive testimony' of' the-officers who measured the visibility distance at-the curve: where the accident occurred, and which made KRS 189.400 ap-’ plicable to the case.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment .is |ffirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming .the $600 judgment in favor of the appellee because we think (1) the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury; and (2) the instruction objected to. was not improper, [817] in view of the positive testimony' of' the-officers who measured the visibility distance at-the curve: where the accident occurred, and which made KRS 189.400 ap-’ plicable to the case.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment .is |ffirmed.

Arnett v. Hensley, 273 S.W.2d 816, 1954 Ky. LEXIS 1203 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

273 S.W.2d 816 (Arnett v. Hensley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related