452 S.W.3d 127
Ky.2014Background
- Reuben Wright (driver) in a tractor-trailer owned by Matthew Keeton Trucking drove a southbound route with a blind curve immediately before an intersection; a warning sign marked the intersection and Wright regularly traveled the route.
- As Wright entered the curve he encountered multiple vehicles stopped in his lane waiting to turn left; he braked and steered right into a ditch to avoid rear-ending them, producing 100 feet of skid marks.
- His trailer swung into the northbound lane and struck Kim Carroll’s vehicle, causing serious leg injuries; Carroll’s operation of her vehicle was not negligent.
- First trial: jury instructed on sudden-emergency doctrine and returned a defense verdict; Court of Appeals (Carroll I) held sudden-emergency instruction improper and remanded.
- Second trial: no sudden-emergency instruction and no instruction requiring Wright to stay in the right lane; jury again returned a defense verdict; Court of Appeals (Carroll II) reversed, holding the trial court should have directed a verdict for Carroll on liability and remanded for damages.
- Kentucky Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals: law-of-the-case did not bar reconsideration because the evidence at the second trial differed materially; on the second trial the evidence established Wright failed to anticipate stopped traffic and thus did not rebut the presumption of negligence from being in the wrong lane.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law-of-the-case barred Court of Appeals from revisiting directed-verdict question | Carroll: Court may reconsider if evidence differs between trials | Wright: Carroll II contradicts Carroll I and reopens settled issue | Held: No bar — evidence in second trial materially stronger, so reconsideration proper (law-of-the-case is prudential) |
| Whether directed verdict for plaintiff was required after second trial | Carroll: Evidence undisputed that Wright failed to anticipate stopped vehicles; trailer in wrong lane creates prima facie negligence and defendant failed to justify | Wright: He acted prudently in evasive maneuver; sudden/unforeseeable circumstance excused presence in wrong lane | Held: Directed verdict required — prima facie negligence from wrong-lane collision not rebutted; jury verdict was flagrantly against evidence |
| Standard of appellate review for directed verdict and whether Court of Appeals misapplied it | Carroll: Court of Appeals applied the clear-error/sufficiency standard correctly | Wright: Court of Appeals misapplied standard and misstated material facts | Held: Court of Appeals applied proper standard and accurately stated material facts; its conclusion stood under review |
| Whether KRS 189.300(1) was misread to impose strict duty to right-lane travel | Wright: Statute applies only to passing and was misconstrued to impose strict liability to remain in right lane | Carroll: Statute could support liability but common-law duty sufficed | Held: Court did not need to resolve statutory interpretation; common-law duty and undisputed facts warranted directed verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2010) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine and its prudential nature)
- Lake v. Smith, 467 S.W.2d 118 (Ky. 1971) (permitting appellate comparison of evidence between trials to reassess directed-verdict appropriateness)
- Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. 1982) (discussing limits of law-of-the-case where facts remain unchanged)
- Bierman v. Klapheke, 967 S.W.2d 16 (Ky. 1998) (standard of review for directed verdicts and respect for trial judge’s discretion)
- Mulberry v. Howard, 457 S.W.2d 827 (Ky. 1970) (rule that presence in wrong lane is prima facie proof of negligence)
- Webb Transfer Lines, Inc. v. Taylor, 439 S.W.2d 88 (Ky. 1968) (burden shifts to defendant to explain why vehicle was on wrong side)
- Paducah Area Public Library v. Terry, 655 S.W.2d 19 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983) (directed verdict appropriate when wrong-lane presence is unexplained or caused by defendant’s own negligence)
- Harris v. Thompson, 497 S.W.2d 422 (Ky. 1973) (discussing sudden-emergency and unavoidable-accident defenses)