Court Opinion

ID: 9539730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:09:15.137189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:16.873397
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I think it was error in this case to permit the two witnesses to testify as to a Chevrolet car’s position on the pavement a mile and a half to two miles back from where the accident occurred. To me such evidence is no proof as to how the car was being driven at the time of the accident. It is not fair to drivers who are careful but have gotten slightly over the center of the highway at a point far removed from the accident. The Supreme Court of Arizona in Morris et al. v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. et al., 73 Ariz. 390, 242 P.2d 279, approved excluding evidence of the speed of a truck four or five blocks away from the place of collision. A similar holding was made in Rzeszewski et al. v. Barth, 324 Ill.App. 345, 58 N.E.2d 269.
In Cornett v. Commonwealth, 282 Ky. 322, 138 S.W.2d 492, 494, the Supreme Court of Kentucky said:
“ * * * The manner in which defendant was driving two and a half *674miles before he reached the place of the fatal accident, or the manner in which he was driving a short distance thereafter, could have no relevancy as to the manner in which he was driving at the point when the accident occurred. Stevens v. Potter, 209 Ky. 70S, 273 S.W. 470; Elkins v. Com., 244 Ky. 583, 51 S.W.2d 916. It is common knowledge that one may greatly change the course of his automobile on the highway and materially change his speed within a very -few seconds and within a very short distance. * ⅜ * ”
I dissent.