302 Mass. 584 (1939), Campbell v. Cairns
|Citation:||302 Mass. 584, 20 N.E.2d 427|
|Party Name:||MARGARET L. CAMPBELL v. SAMUEL J. CAIRNS.|
|Case Date:||April 11, 1939|
|Court:||Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts|
February 10, 1939.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., DONAHUE, LUMMUS, QUA, & DOLAN, JJ.
Negligence, Motor vehicle, Contributory, In use of way.
Evidence of the circumstances in which the plaintiff, leaving a bus at night, walked to its rear and then across the street, seeing at his right four hundred feet away a light that he did not think was an approaching automobile, and was struck by an automobile operated rapidly by the defendant from that direction before he reached the other side of the street, warranted submission to the jury of the questions of negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
TORT. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated November 20, 1934.
On removal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before Beaudreau, J. and a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,930 was recorded with leave reserved. The judge ordered entered a verdict for the defendant and reported the action.
A.L. Brown, (F. W. Ziniti with him,) for the plaintiff. H. W. Hardy, for the defendant.
DOLAN, J. This is an action of tort to recover compensation for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when struck by an automobile operated by the defendant. The case was referred to an auditor, who found for the defendant, and was then tried to a jury before whom the auditor's report and other evidence were introduced. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the judge, acting under leave reserved, upon the defendant's motion entered a verdict for the defendant, subject to the plaintiff's exception. The judge then reported the case for the determination of this court.
The questions raised and argued by the parties are (1) whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to support a verdict for the plaintiff, and (2) whether evidence by which the plaintiff was bound required as matter of law a ruling that the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. Since as to both questions the result is not doubtful it is not necessary to set forth in detail the facts that the jury could have found. See Karsokas v. Universal Motor Sales Co. 277 Mass. 154 , 155.
There was evidence that on February 14, 1934, at about 6:20 P.M., the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP