Court Opinion

ID: 9641050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:21:43.409815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.743890
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because a summary judgment cannot properly be entered unless there is no genuine issue of fact to be determined.
Appellant’s claim cannot be denied on the ground of contributory negligence unless he knew (or should have realized) that Elisabeth Connelly had been drinking to the extent that her ability to drive was affected. Isaac v. Allen, Ky., 429 S.W.2d 37 (1968).
Whether appellant knew this or should have realized it is a question of fact which should be determined by a jury unless the evidence is such that reasonable minds are compelled to only one conclusion.
In depositions filed and considered by the court the appellant testified that Ms. Con-nelly did not appear intoxicated to him and that he noticed nothing unusual about her driving until a short distance before the accident.
A jury would have been entitled to believe him unless other circumstances rendered his testimony unbelievable as a matter of law.
Appellant had been in the presence of Ms. Connelly and another companion constantly for approximately three to three and one-half hours prior to the accident. During that time appellant observed Ms. Connelly drinking from a sixteen-ounce can of beer plus an unknown part of one bottle of wine and a small amount of gin.
It is my opinion that these circumstances would easily support, but do not compel, a finding that appellant must have known Ms. Connelly’s ability to drive was affected.
Appellant knew Ms. Connelly drank from a can of beer but whether she drank the whole can or only part of it was not established. The gin bottle had only about one-half inch of gin in it and it was not shown how much of that was drunk by Ms. Con-nelly and how much by the others. The quantity of wine consumed by Ms. Connelly was not shown.
Although the three persons involved drank all of the alcoholic beverages they had during a period of three to three and. one-half hours, a jury would not be compelled to believe that appellant saw Ms. Connelly consume any more than a part of one can of beer, a swallow or two of wine and a sip of gin during that period.
Such small consumption would not compel appellant to realize Ms. Connelly was intoxicated. The mere fact that she was intoxicated does not mean that he had to realize it — or else there would be no need for the second test established by Isaac v. Allen, supra.
Perhaps a jury would reach the same conclusion as the trial judge, but we are not entitled to assume this would happen.
I think there was a genuine question of fact in this case about which reasonable men could reach different conclusions on the basis of the evidence and therefore summary judgment was not proper. I would reverse the judgment for further proceedings.