Cassidy v. Hollingsworth

• Decision Date: 09 June 1949
• Citation: 324 Mass. 424,86 N.E.2d 663
• Parties: CASSIDY v. HOLLINGSWORTH (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

324 Mass. 424

86 N.E.2d 663

CASSIDY

v.HOLLINGSWORTH (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Argued May 3, 1949.

Decided June 9, 1949.

Appeal from District Court of Peabody; D. C. Manning, Judge.

Actions of tort by Charles V. Cassidy and his wife, Julia M. Cassidy, respectively, against John A. Hollingsworth for damage to plaintiff's automobile and personal injuries to plaintiff wife as the results of a collision with defendant's automobile. From an order of the Appellate Division, reversing a district court judge's denial of defendant's request for rulings that the evidence required findings for defendant and directing entry of findings for them on the report, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and dismissal of the report ordered.

Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, DOLAN, SPALDING, and WILLIAMS, JJ.

J. E. McVann, Peabody, for plaintiff.

T. F. Daley, Jr., Westfield, for defendant.

DOLAN, Justice.

These are two actions of tort, the first having been brought by the plaintiff Charles to recover compensation for damage to his automobile, and the second by his wife to recover for personal injuries sustained by her in the circumstances recited below. At the close of the hearing before the trial judge, he denied the defendant's request for a ruling in each case that the evidence required a finding for the defendant, and found for the plaintiffs.¹ Upon report the Appellate Division in each case decided that it was prejudicial error to deny the defendant's request above set forth and ordered that a finding be entered for the defendant in each case. The plaintiffs appealed.

There was evidence to warrant the finding of the following facts. On October 11, 1947, the plaintiff Julia was operating her husband's automobile on Main Street in Peabody toward Park Street, which entered Main Street from her right. She was driving on the right side of Main Street. A building housing a hardware store was on the corner of Main and Park streets, and an alleyway separated that store from an adjoining theatre. When she first saw the defendant's automobile she was at a distance from it of fifty feet. It was then stopped on the right side of Main Street, just beyond the alleyway. She approached, travelling in a line of traffic, and when her husband's vehicle was half way past that of the defendant, she heard a ripping noise. That was the first time that she knew that there had been an accident. She continued for about ten car lengths, stopped and parked the automobile and, returning to the scene of the accident, found the defendant's vehicle in the alley adjoining the hardware store and ‘off’ Main Street. She accused the defendant of ‘hitting her car,’ and the defendant said, ‘I guess I owe you a fender.’ There was also evidence of damage to the automobile of the plaintiff Charles and of personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff Julia. The material findings of fact made by the judge were in substance as set forth above and were supported by the evidence. There was no evidence to warrant a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff Julia. In denying the defendant's request for a ruling in each case the judge ruled that the evidence did not comport with the...