Chenery v. Russell
| Decision Date | 20 July 1933 |
| Citation | 167 A. 857 |
| Parties | CHENERY v. RUSSELL (two cases). RUSSELL v. CHENERY (three cases). |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On motion from Superior Court, Cumberland County.
Actions by Susie A. Chenery and by William N. Chenery against John O. Russell and by Edith M. Russell, by John O. Russell, and by John O. Russell against William Chenery. The actions were tried together. On motions of Edith M. Russell and John O. Russell for new trial following adverse verdicts.
Each motion denied, and judgment on each verdict.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and THAXTER, JJ.
William B. Mahoney and Theodore Gonya, both of Portland, for Mr. & Mrs. Chenery.
Verrill, Hale, Booth & Ives, of Portland, for Mr. & Mrs. Russell.
These actions were tried together, in the Cumberland superior court. The automobile collision out of which they grow, occurred early in the afternoon of November 5, 1932, in a suburb of Portland, on the main highway to Gray. William N. Chenery owned, and was driving one of the vehicles, a Pontiac coupe, southerly, in the direction of Portland. He was accompanied by his wife. Both were injured, and the automobile damaged. In his action against John O. Russell, the owner of the other car, who himself was operating it, Mr. Chenery recovered a verdict. The award of damages, $4.231.50, was for serious personal injuries, property damage, and expense and loss by reason of injuries to Mrs. Chenery. whose own verdict, for bodily hurts, was $220. Neither award, it may be noted, is insisted excessive.
The other car was an Oldsmobile sedan. It was proceeding along the highway, in a northerly course. Mrs. Russell, who was riding with her husband, was slightly injured. The automobile was damaged. In the three actions brought by the Russells, verdicts were for the defendant.
All five actions are presented to this court by the Russells, on motions for new trial.
Contention is that the verdicts are so clearly wrong that they should be set aside as against the evidence; the movents insist that the version of the accident which the jury accepted, and on which the verdicts are rested, was completely overwhelmed by opposing proof.
The Chenerys based their claims to recover, and their defenses, upon the predicate that, as the cars were about to meet, Mr. Russell, who had his head turned toward his wife, negligently permitted his car to pass across from approximately the medial line of the road, to his left of the middle, and there collide with the approaching Chenery car.
The Russells claimed that as the cars were meeting, the rear of the Chenery car, skidding to the left, came almost entirely across the tarvia road, the width of which was 24 feet, and struck the Russell car. The declarations in their writs allege negligence on the part of Mr. Chenery, in driving at what, because of the slippery condition of the highway after a shower, was an excessive rate of speed.
There was testimony that the rough treads which had originally been on the rear tires of the Chenery car were worn smooth. Mr. and Mrs. Chenery both denied that their car skidded, and witnessed that to the time of the accident the car was on its extreme right side of the way.
The left side of the Chenery car was struck on and behind the door, causing the door to open, Mr. Chenery falling onto the road. The rear left wheel of the car was demolished. The damage to the Russell car was of the left lamp, the mudguard on that side, and the rim of the front left wheel, which, for an inch or two, was bent. Immediately after the accident, the Chenery car was crosswise of the road, heading easterly, and closely diagonal to the rear of the Russell car. It was stated on the witness stand, by Mr. and Mrs. Chenery, that the impact of the Russell car turned the Chenery car, and that after the collision Mr. Russell quickly swerved his car to its proper side of the road.
On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Russell testified that their car had continuously been far to its right-hand side.
Where the accident happened was the underlying issue. Each plaintiff relied upon a violation of the "rule of the road." In the foreground, then, the collision occurred either on the Chenery side, or on the Russell side of the highway.
The only eyewitnesses, aside from the Chenerys and Russells, were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. Butler.
...orally delivered, of observing their demeanor and conduct upon the stand, and considering prejudice, if any is shown.’ Chenery v. Russell, 132 Me. 130, 167 A. 857, 858. It was within the province of the jury to accept or reject the oral testimony of the defendant given at the time of the tr......
-
Smith v. Moroney
...rather the phrase 'weigh the evidence' depends on its effect in including belief. Arnst v. Estes, 136 Me. 272, 8 A.2d 201; Chenery v. Russell, 132 Me. 130, 167 A. 857; O'Shea v. Pattison-McGrath Dental Supplies, Inc., 352 Mo. 855, 180 S.W.2d 19; Braunschweiger v. Waits, 179 Pa. 47, 36 A. 15......
-
Hill v. Finnemore
...evidence. If it is not, the verdict must stand, even though the court itself might have arrived at a different result. Chenery v. Russell (Russell v. Chenery), 132 Me. 130, and cases therein cited on page 134, 167 A. 857. A careful study of the record convinces the court that there was suff......
-
Shannon v. Dow
...his testimony may outweigh all of theirs. The question is what is to be believed, not how many witnesses have testified. Chenery v. Russell, 132 Me. 130, 167 A. 857; Ladd v. Bean, 117 Me. 445, 104 A. 814. The verdict of the jury rested upon disputed facts and was dependent on the credibilit......