Arnett v. Hensley , 273 S.W.2d 816 ( 1954 )

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming .the $600 judgment in favor of the appellee because we think (1) the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury; and (2) the instruction objected to. was not improper, in view of the positive testimony' of' the-officers who measured the visibility distance at-the curve: where the accident occurred, and which made KRS 189.400 ap-’ plicable to the case.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment .is |ffirmed.