191 F. 504 (1st Cir. 1911), 946, Ross v. Salminen

Docket Nº:946.
Citation:191 F. 504
Party Name:ROSS v. SALMINEN.
Case Date:November 29, 1911
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 504

191 F. 504 (1st Cir. 1911)

ROSS

v.

SALMINEN.

No. 946.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

November 29, 1911

William A. Thibodeau (Thibodeau & Ellsworth, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

William A. Pew, Jr., for defendant in error.

Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit for an injury by an automobile owned by the defendant. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant below sued out this writ of error. We will continue to call the parties plaintiff and defendant.

The plaintiff testified that she was riding in a wagon and the automobile came up behind and collided with her wagon; so there was sufficient to go to the jury on the question of negligence on the part of whoever was operating the automobile. As to the ownership of the automobile by the defendant, and as to whether or not it was being operated in his behalf, the defendant claimed there was no proper evidence, and moved the court to direct a verdict in his behalf, which motion was refused.

Page 505

It must be admitted that the record is in some confusion as to what really occurred; but, rejecting everything else, we are satisfied that the following evidence was in the record, and was never stricken out, as claimed by the defendant, but stood throughout the trial. On an interview with the plaintiff's representative the defendant said:

'A. I am liable for the accident. It was my automobile. I am not trying to dodge the responsibility. He said that his automobile was a new or comparatively new one, and his son and a man named Connor took it out to run it and find some defect that was in the automobile. They were coming along Mechanic street, and they were both listening for a defect.'

If the facts were as thus stated by the defendant, there could be no question as to the ownership of the automobile, or as to the fact of its being operated in his behalf, or of the further fact that, in connection with the negligence which we have stated, the court could not properly take the case from the jury. It is claimed, however, that the statement was made by the defendant as a matter not within his own knowledge. The admission of the statement, however, is in conformity with universal practice; and it is enough to say that, when a person charged as a defendant makes a statement...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP