205 Ky. 798 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1924
Affirming.
On April 6, 1921, a fast train running from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Cincinnati, Ohio, was derailed in the state of Tennessee. The coach in which W. H. Perkins was riding was thrown against the side of a cliff, and he was injured. Thereafter he sued for damages and alleged that the accident was occasioned by the gross and wanton negligence of the company, and under the laws of Tennessee he was entitled to punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, necessary expenses and loss of wages. In its answer the company admitted ordinary negligence, but denied gross negligence, and that under the laws of Tennessee plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages, as well as. the extent of his injuries, and the several losses claimed. The case went to trial on these issues and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,000.00. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the company has appealed.
Appellee testified over the objection of appellant that three people in the coach which he occupied were killed, and the court instructed the jury that they could consider this evidence for the purpose of showing the violence of the shock to the train, and for no other purpose. Of this ruling appellant complains. Whether the evidence was admissible or not it is unnecessary to determine. The only issue before the jury was the amount of damages, and the evidence complained of had such remote bearing on that issue that we do not regard its admission as prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant.
Another contention is that the court erred in authorizing a finding for lost time. At the time of the accident appellee was a traveling salesman for Bayless Bros. & Company. The manager of that firm testified that even if appellee had been able to work the firm-had nothing for him to do between April and June. In view of this evidence it is insisted that appellee lost no time. The fact that his own firm could not have given him employment can not be regarded as conclusive. In that event he had the right to seek other employment, and having-established his incapacity there was sufficient evidence of lost time to authorize the submission of the question to the jury.
The principal error relied on was the overruling of appellant’s motion requesting the court to appoint a
Judgment affirmed.