Adams v. Averill

• Citation: 88 A. 738,87 Vt. 230
• Parties: ADAMS v. AVERILL.
• Decision Date: 05 November 1913
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

88 A. 738
87 Vt. 230

ADAMS
v.
AVERILL.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Nov. 5, 1913.

Exceptions from Washington County Court; Frank L. Fish, Judge.

Action by Nora Adams against Charles W. Averill. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepted. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before POWERS, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and TAYLOR, JJ.

Richard A. Hoar and J. Ward Carver, both of Barre, for plaintiff.

S. Hollister Jackson, of Barre, for defendant.

WATSON, J. At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved for a verdict on the grounds (stated in abridged form): (1) That there was no evidence tending to show the plaintiff free from contributory negligence; and (2) that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

88 A. 739

On exception to the overruling of this motion the ease is here.

It appears from undisputed evidence that at the time of the accident in question the defendant was operating his automobile in North Main street in the city of Barre. He came into that street quite a distance north of the place of the accident, and was proceeding southward on the right-hand side of the street, and at the right of the track of the electric railroad, there extending along practically in the center of the street. It was some minutes past noon. The plaintiff and her companion, one Mrs. Baldwin, had been waiting in a store just a little north of a stopping place for the electric cars, intending to take the next car northerly towards their homes. The plaintiff, hearing or seeing an electric car coming from the south and going northerly, spoke to her companion, and hurried out to stop it, going along the sidewalk to a point opposite where the cars stop. At that place the distance from the curbstone at the edge of the street to the line of the running board of the open electric cars on the track was 18 feet. The defendant, in his automobile, was coming up the street from the north, the machine being not more than 5 1/2 feet wide. From the place of the accident northerly, the street is straight for a long distance, the day was clear, the plaintiff's eyesight good, and there was nothing to obstruct her view in that direction when on the sidewalk just before stepping into the street.

The evidence immediately touching the happening of the accident will be stated, according to its fair and reasonable tendency, most strongly in favor of the plaintiff. She testified, in effect, that just before stepping off...