## Facts

- At about 7:00 p.m. on December 28, 1966, eighteen-year-old Norman Keith Martin crossed South Seminary Street mid-block in Madisonville, Kentucky, to collect a neighbor’s mail and then began crossing back.
- Before stepping into the street, Martin stopped at the curb and looked both directions for traffic.
- Martin testified he saw a northbound car (driven by seventeen-year-old William A. Dickerson) about 550 feet away and began walking across at a normal pace.
- An eyewitness estimated Dickerson’s car was much closer when Martin stepped off the curb (about four car lengths away).
- Martin did not look south again after entering the roadway and saw the car only an instant before impact.
- Dickerson’s vehicle struck Martin with its right front fender when Martin was a step or two from the far curb.
- Martin sued William A. Dickerson (driver) and William T. Dickerson (owner) and obtained a jury verdict for $12,193.70.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict because Martin was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and last clear chance did not apply.
2. Whether the evidence permitted submission of the last clear chance doctrine to the jury.
3. Whether the court should have instructed the jury that Martin was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, leaving only last clear chance for determination.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Martin.
- The court held Martin’s contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law and was properly submitted to the jury.
- The court held the evidence supported submitting last clear chance to the jury.
- The court found no error in refusing to give a binding instruction that Martin was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence is ordinarily a jury question unless the evidence compels only one reasonable inference.
- A pedestrian’s mid-block crossing and failure to continue watching traffic does not automatically constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law when distance, speed, timing, and visibility are disputed.
- Last clear chance may be submitted to the jury when there is evidence the defendant, after the plaintiff’s peril arose or should have been discovered, had a clear opportunity by ordinary care to avoid the injury and failed to do so.
- When contributory negligence is not conclusively shown, a court should not instruct the jury that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court left the verdict intact because conflicting evidence about the car’s distance and circumstances of visibility and timing permitted reasonable jurors to differ on both Martin’s contributory negligence and whether Dickerson had a last clear chance to avoid the collision.


Dickerson v. Martin, 450 S.W.2d 520 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970)