permanent injury instruction in Kentucky

1965Her doctor (an osteopathic physician and surgeon whose professional qualifications are not assailed) gave it as his opinion that appellant will have a “50% partial permanent disability.” When her counsel asked what he meant by “permanent” he replied: “I think this particular trouble will continue to bother her permanently.” The condition from which appellant will so suffer was described by the doctor as “traumatic or degenerative arthritis in the cervical and lumbar areas.” We consider this evidence adequate to warrant the permanent injury instruction; it is not a mere possibility as treated i

1965Her doctor (an osteopathic physician and surgeon whose professional qualifications are not assailed) gave it as his opinion that appellant will have a “50% partial permanent disability.” When her counsel asked what he meant by “permanent” he replied: “I think this particular trouble will continue to bother her permanently.” The condition from which appellant will so suffer was described by the doctor as “traumatic or degenerative arthritis in the cervical and lumbar areas.” We consider this evidence adequate to warrant the permanent injury instruction; it is not a mere possibility as treated i

1964See Black v. Bishop, 306 Ky. 524 , 207 S.W.2d 22 ; H. & S. Theatres Co. v. Hampton, 300 Ky. 677 , 190 S.W.2d 39 ; and Bray- Robinson Clothing Co. v. Higgins, 219 Ky. 293 , 293 S.W. 151 .

1964Co. v. Bowman, 208 Ky. 39 , 270 S.W. 471, 472 , a verdict of $1500 was upheld where an instruction was given authorizing a recovery for permanent injuries on very slight evidence of such condition, for the reason that the amount awarded was no more than reasonable compensation for the injuries received, “without reference to the evidence of their permanency, so that this instruction could not be considered prejudicial.” We conclude the Bowman case governs the point raised as to the permanent injury instruction.

1964Co. v. Bowman, 208 Ky. 39 , 270 S.W. 471, 472 , a verdict of $1500 was upheld where an instruction was given authorizing a recovery for permanent injuries on very slight evidence of such condition, for the reason that the amount awarded was no more than reasonable compensation for the injuries received, “without reference to the evidence of their permanency, so that this instruction could not be considered prejudicial.” We conclude the Bowman case governs the point raised as to the permanent injury instruction.

1951Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Creech, 245 Ky. 414 , 53 S.W.2d 745 ; Combs v. Stewart, 301 Ky. 50 , 190 S.W.2d 861 .

1951Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Creech, 245 Ky. 414 , 53 S.W.2d 745 ; Combs v. Stewart, 301 Ky. 50 , 190 S.W.2d 861 .

1951Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Creech, 245 Ky. 414 , 53 S.W.2d 745 ; Combs v. Stewart, 301 Ky. 50 , 190 S.W.2d 861 .

1951Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Creech, 245 Ky. 414 , 53 S.W.2d 745 ; Combs v. Stewart, 301 Ky. 50 , 190 S.W.2d 861 .

1927But certainly, where there is no -certain and definite evidence that the injury may be permanent, and where the evidence as to the permanency of the injury is speculative or mere conjecture, a permanent injury instruction should not be given. ' Illustrative cases are as follows: Louisville Southern Railroad Company v. Minogue, 90 Ky. 369 , 14 S. W. 357 , 12 Ky. Law Rep. 378 , 29 Am.

1927But certainly, where there is no -certain and definite evidence that the injury may be permanent, and where the evidence as to the permanency of the injury is speculative or mere conjecture, a permanent injury instruction should not be given. ' Illustrative cases are as follows: Louisville Southern Railroad Company v. Minogue, 90 Ky. 369 , 14 S. W. 357 , 12 Ky. Law Rep. 378 , 29 Am.