Bolduc v. Garcelon

• Decision Date: 16 January 1929
• Citation: 144 A. 395
• Parties: BOLDUC v. GARCELON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

144 A. 395

BOLDUC

v. GARCELON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 16, 1929.

On Motion from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.

Action by Wilfred Bolduc against William S. Garcelon. Verdict for plaintiff. On defendant's motions for new trial. Motions overruled.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., DEASY, STURGIS, BARNES, and BASSETT, JJ., and PHILBROOK, A. R, J.

Clifford & Clifford, of Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Frank A. Morey, of Lewiston, for defendant.

STURGIS, J. The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for injuries resulting from the collision of his motorcycle with the defendant's automobile. His verdict below is brought here on motions for a new trial.

The evidence shows that the collision occurred a little after 9 o'clock in the forenoon of June 21, 1928, at the intersection of Main and Holland streets in the city of Lewiston. The defendant was driving up Main street on the right-hand side, and, in disregard of the motor vehicle laws of this state, turned his car to the left across Main street into Holland street, passing south and to the left of the intersection of the center lines of the traveled part of the two ways. This was a direct violation of chapter 211, § 7, P. L. 1921, a statute especially designed to prevent collisions at the intersection of ways, reading as follows:

"Whoever operates a motor vehicle shall at the intersection of ways keep to the right of the intersection of the center lines of the traveled part of such ways when turning to the right, and pass to the right of such intersection when turning to the left, except when traffic officers otherwise direct traffic."

This flagrant disregard of the law by the defendant, while not absolutely establishing his liability, creates a presumption of negligence in favor of the plaintiff, which the defendant, upon the issue of his own negligence, must overcome if he would prevail. "Violation of the law of the road is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the person disobeying it." Dansky v. Kotimaki, 125 Me. 72, 74, 130 A. 871, 873, and cases cited.

The evidence offered in the defendant's behalf fails to overcome this presumption against him. As he turned across Main street his attention was undoubtedly directed to automobiles following immediately behind him, and in his turn across and into Holland street he gave little if any consideration to the approach of vehicles from the north. In fact, from the evidence we think it is doubtful whether he saw the plaintiff until just prior to the collision, and the jury may well have found that the defendant suddenly and without warning turned across Main street in entire disregard of the plaintiff's rights as a traveler upon the highway and was negligent.

The jury found also that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. Upon this issue the facts are disputed and the testimony is conflicting. There is evidence that the plaintiff was operating his motorcycle at high rate of speed. He says he was driving slowly, and in the situation in which he found himself did all that a reasonably prudent man could do. His testimony is: "I started down on my motorcycle. When I got down as far as Higgins block there was a truck set between those two trees, and when I got up to the rear end, the hind wheel of the truck, I seen the car coming, an automobile coming on the car track. So I kept going just the same, going ahead. When I got corner of Holland street I looked on Holland street and the road—wasn't no car out there that I see—so I kept coming just the same. When I got little over halfway across I seen that car leaving the car track, shooting diagonally right onto me. So I didn't have no chance to drive to my left...