Case Name: Harold C. McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-11-05
Citations: 337 F.2d 854
Docket Number: No. 15755
Parties: Harold C. McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 337
Pages: 854–855

Head Matter:
Harold C. McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15755.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1964.
Carl L. Wedekind, Jr., Louisville, Ky.,. Stites, Peabody & Helm, Louisville, Ky.,. on brief, for defendant-appellant.
David L. Waterman, Louisville, Ky.,. for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and; PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit. Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff was a customer in the retail store of the defendant located at a shopping center near Louisville, Kentucky. He desired to purchase a used power lawnmower. The third lawnmower-shown to him by the manager of the store had an automatic starter to start the-gasoline operated motor which was called, an "impulse" or "recoil" starter. Plaintiff inquired as to the selling price of this-mower. The manager went to a different part of the store to ascertain it. During the absence of the manager, plaintiff picked up the lawnmower for-examination. The motor started while-he was holding the mower in his hands. The blades cut his right hand. He sued' for damages for personal injuries in the-District Court and the jury awarded', him $4,000.00.
The only question raised in this appeal is whether the District Court erred' in denying the defendant's motion for a-, directed verdict. Defendant did not. claim that the evidence as to negligence' was insufficient. It contended that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence- and assumption of risk as a matter of law.
In our opinion, viewing the evidence as to these two issues in its most favorable light to the plaintiff, reasonable minds could reach different conclusions. The District Court was, therefore, required to submit them to the jury. The court did not err in denying the motion for directed verdict. Middleton v. Partin, 347 S.W.2d 75 (Ky., 1961).
Affirmed.