“Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” ~Kahlil Gibran

I have received a couple of e-mails asking about the aftermath of Carole’s car accident and the scar that was left on her cheek. Here are two articles relating to the incident that gives us a bit more insight on our Lombard. That girl didn’t just have beauty and brains– she had GUTS!

Los Angeles Times, October 13, 1927, pg. A9:

Actress Demands Damages For Cut


Film Bathing Girl Sues For $35,000 as Result of Auto Accident

Judge Fleming of Superior Court will be called upon this morning to determine the value of a scar on the cheek of a bathing girl when Carole Jane Peters, motion picture actress, appears to prosecute her suit for $35,000 in damages against Harry Cooper, 16 years of age, and his parents Mr. and Mrs. John Cooper.

Miss Peters, who is 17, and earns her livelihood play bathing-beauty roles in comedies, contends the scar greatly distracts from her appearance before the camera. She asserts she received the scar as a result of a collision between young Cooper’s automobile and another car in 1926. Miss Peters, who is known professionally as Carole Lombard, says she was riding with Cooper at the time of the accident.

Los Angeles Times, October 15, 1927, pg. A5:

Suit Over Scar on Girl Settled

Superior Court Judge Fleming yesterday was spared the necessity of determining how much it is worth for a motion-picture actress to carry a scar on her cheek when the suit for $35,000 damages brought by Miss Carole Jane Peters was settled before being called to trial.

Miss Peters had sued Harry Cooper, holding him responsible for the scar she declared she bears as a result of an automobile accident. Miss Peters stated she was a passenger in Cooper’s machine when it collided with another car.

While terms of the settlement were not made public, it is reported Miss Peters agreed to accept $3,000 in lieu of going to trial.

5 Responses to Lombard Took That Scar To Court

  1. Rose says:

    This is new info to me! You are thorough. What was Carole doing with jail bait? Wouldn’t she have been 19 in 1927?

  2. WebMistress says:

    You would be correct Rose. Carole would have just turned 19 at the time but you know the stars back then. . .always taking a year or two off ; )

    As for the jail bait, who knows if they were even on a date. I know they ran in the same crowds and it could have been he was only giving her a lift home. I’m still researching more on the accident and obviously more on their relationship.

    I’d have to research more on past laws regarding the age of consent however I think that in California it has been 18 since 1920.

    xoxo with 483974839748923748932 cherries on top.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


* Copy this password:

* Type or paste password here:

39,936 Spam Comments Blocked so far by Spam Free Wordpress

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>