Daniel v. Kerby

3 Citing cases

  1. Owens — Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly

    976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1998)   Cited 338 times
    Holding "the jury is to consider not only the defendant's conduct, but the relationship of that conduct to the injury suffered by this particular plaintiff[]"

    We have long held that for purposes of appellate review, a finding of fact of a trial judge ranks in equal dignity with the verdict of a properly instructed jury, i.e., if supported by substantial evidence, it will be upheld, otherwise, it will be set aside as "clearly erroneous." Daniel v. Kerby, Ky., 420 S.W.2d 393 (1967); Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Huffman, Ky., 340 S.W.2d 447 (1960); Yates v. Wilson, Ky., 339 S.W.2d 458 (1960). In this jurisdiction, "substantial evidence" means evidence of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men. Kentucky State Racing Comm'n v. Fuller, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (1972); Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chem. Co., Ky., 474 S.W.2d 367 (1971); O'Nan v. Ecklar Moore Express, Inc., Ky., 339 S.W.2d 466 (1960).

  2. Long v. McAllister

    319 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1982)   Cited 66 times
    Holding loss-of-use damages are available in motor vehicle accident cases

    See Kopischke v. Chicago, St. P., M. O. Ry., 230 Minn. 23, 31-32, 40 N.W.2d 834, 839 (1950). Loss of use damages are now permitted under various rules even in destruction cases in a growing number of other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Dennis v. Ford Motor Co., 332 F. Supp. 901 (D.C.Pa. 1971), aff'd, 471 F.2d 733 (3d Cir. 1973) (applying Pennsylvania law); Bettis v. Roache, 296 F. Supp. 947 (D.C.Canal Zone 1969); Buchanan v. Leonard, 127 F. Supp. 120 (D.C.Col. 1954) (applying Colorado law); Stevens v. Mid-Continent Investment Co. Inc., 257 Ark. 439, 517 S.W.2d 208 (1974); Reynolds v. Bank of America National Trust Savings Assn., 53 Cal.2d 49, 345 P.2d 926 (1959); Gamble v. Smith, 386 A.2d 692 (D.C.App. 1978); Wajay Bakery, Inc. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 177 So.2d 544 (Fla.App. 1965); New York Central Railroad Company v. Churchill, 140 Ind. App. 426, 218 N.E.2d 372 (1966); Peterson v. Bachar, 193 Kan. 161, 392 P.2d 853 (1964); Daniel v. Kerby, 420 S.W.2d 393 (Ky. 1967); Washington v. Lake City Beverage, Inc., 352 So.2d 717 (La.App. 1977), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 1050 (La. 1978); Weishaar v. Canestrale, 241 Md. 676, 217 A.2d 525 (1966); Wenz v. Leon, 90 Misc.2d 85, 393 N.Y.S.2d 309 (1977); Roberts v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 273 N.C. 600, 160 S.E.2d 712 (1968); Park v. Moorman Mfg. Co., 121 Utah 339, 241 P.2d 914 (1952); Nashban Barrel Container Co. v. G.G. Parsons Trucking Co., 49 Wis.2d 591, 182 N.W.2d 448 (1971). This view is also reflected in the Restatement.

  3. Stevens v. Mid-Continent Investments, Inc.

    257 Ark. 439 (Ark. 1975)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that there is “no logical reason” for the distinction

    The recovery is subject to the reasonableness of time required for replacement and unspeculative lost profits. See Nashban Barrel Con. Co. G. G. Parsons Trucking Co. supra; Dennis v. Ford Motor Company, 332 F. Supp. 901 (W.D. Pa. 1971); Daniel v. Kerby, Ky., 420 S.W.2d 393 (1967); New York Central Railroad Company v. Churchill, 140 Ind. App. 426, 218 N.E.2d 372 (1966); Laney Tank lines, Inc. v. United States, 237 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. S. Ca. 1965); and 18 A.L.R.3d 9, p. 519. In New York Central Railroad Company v. Churchill, supra, a tractor-trailer unit was totally destroyed.