Blanton v. Metz

3 Citing cases

  1. Walton v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

    655 S.W.2d 11 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982)

    Although there are holdings in other jurisdictions to the effect that absence of a stop or yield sign relieves the driver of a vehicle on a secondary road of the duty to yield the right-of-way, Kentucky does not appear to be adopting such position. In Blanton v. Metz, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 306 (1962), the defendant-driver, traveling on an inferior street, complained that the stop sign he passed was located in a hedge off the sidewalk and was, therefore, difficult to see. He argued that instructions should have been given treating the intersection as unregulated because of the difficulty in observing the sign.

  2. Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Stephens

    428 S.W.2d 605 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968)

    The jury viewed the three areas in which the alleged damage occurred. It is patent that the jury concluded that nothing of value had been cut or damaged by the appellees. At best, it could be argued that the appellant was entitled to recover $4 as a matter of law based on evidence for the appellees themselves, but this amount is so trivial as to fall within the maxim, de minimis non curat lex. Leigh Banana Case Co. v. Paducah Spoke Company, 184 Ky. 36, 211 S.W. 192; Blanton v. Metz, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 306. Appellant's theory of the measure of damages was submitted to the jury, so appellant has no ground of complaint in that respect. As to appellant's claim that it was entitled to an instruction on the theory of punitive damages, we think it is clear from the record that the appellant failed to present evidence warranting submission to the jury of the theory of wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the appellees.

  3. Robinette v. Commonwealth Dept. of Highways

    380 S.W.2d 78 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 8 times

    Judge Dietzman said in that case that for such a small amount the court would not reverse the judgment. To the same effect are Foley's Adm'r v. Robertson's Guardian, 215 Ky. 647, 286 S.W. 851 (1926); Nussbaum v. Standard By-Products Co., 216 Ky. 119, 287 S.W. 353 (1926); and Blanton v. Metz, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 306 (1962). Consequently, even if the appellants' testimony were ignored, the amount involved is so trifling as not to warrant a reversal.