Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 189
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.410 (2026)

Repealed, 1994

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Approaching curve or obstruction. History: Repealed 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 203, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1994. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2739g- 47.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1945–1971 · leading case: Monroe v. Townsend, 213 S.W.2d 803 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monroe v. Townsend, 213 S.W.2d 803 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). · cites it 2× “Section 189.410, KRS, provides as follows: “Every operator of a motor vehicle, or bicycle when approaching a curve or an obstruction that prevents a clear view of the highway for a distance ahead of 150 feet, shall hold the motor vehicle or bicycle under control and shall give…”
Shewmaker v. Richeson ex rel. Richeson, 344 S.W.2d 802 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 2× “KRS 189.410 places this duty on the motorist “when approaching a curve or an obstruction that prevents a clear view of the highway for a distance ahead of 150 feet”.”
Kentucky Transp. Co. v. Campbell, 186 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). · cites it 2× “Both parties agree that the road at the time of the accident was dry. Point No. 1 may be disposed of briefly.”
Schultz v. Smith's Adm'r, 234 S.W.2d 676 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “We there pointed out that the happening of an accident does not raise a presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the plaintux to prove the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and that such failure was the proximate cause of the accident.”
Evans v. Dotson, 255 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “KRS 189.410. Neither party testified .concerning whether or not.”
Sherrow v. Watts' Adm'r, 226 S.W.2d 929 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). · cites it 2× “390(b), and KRS 189.410 were not shown to exist, hence an instruction requiring appellant to comply therewith was erroneous.”
Nolan v. Nally, 342 S.W.2d 400 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). “In our opinion KRS 189.410 and 189.420 justify the instruction.”
Raybourn v. Howard, 307 S.W.2d 206 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “We do not believe that the statutory duty to sound a horn should be interpreted as extending to cover the emergency situation presented in this case, especially since there was an unobstructed view for 150 feet (see KRS 189.410). It was proper to refuse to instruct on such a…”
Probus v. Bohannon, 416 S.W.2d 741 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “It seems entirely reasonable that a properly instructed jury could have found Probus negligent for driving in the center of the road up a hill where she could not" see over the crest, for traveling at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour at that particular time and place, and for…”
Stunson v. Easley, 469 S.W.2d 58 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “) Stunson’s argument is that a crest in the road, or a “blind hill,” is an “obstruction” within the meaning of KRS 189.410, and therefore Easley had the statutory duty to keep his car under such control, when approaching the crest, that he could avoid a collision should he be…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.