Coates v. Bates
| Decision Date | 04 January 1929 |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 448,265 Mass. 444 |
| Parties | COATES v. BATES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; F. B. Greenhalge, Judge.
Action by Frank M. Coates against John L. Bates. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.Geo. A. Sullivan, of Salem, for plaintiff.
H. R. Mayo, of Lynn, for defendant.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries, received by the plaintiff while riding in an automobile, in Hampton, in the state of New Hampshire.
At the time of the accident, which occurred about 11:15 in the evening, the automobile was operated by one Chester F. Horne, a nephew of the plaintiff. There was evidence offered by the plaintiff tending to show that when Horne first saw the defendant's automobile it was six hundred and fifty feet away, coming toward him traveling in the center of the road; that it did not change its direction or speed, and as the automobiles passed each other there was a collision, the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding ‘shot across the street into the embankment on its extreme left’ side, and its occupants were thrown out, as a result of which the plaintiff's leg was broken; that on the left running board of the defendant's automobile a camping outfit was strapped which projected six or eight inches, and that it collided with the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding; that the latter was traveling at a speed of about fifteen miles an hour and at the time of the accident was on the extreme right side of the road.
The defendant offered evidence tending to show that his automobile was being operated at a speed of about fifteen to eighteen miles an hour, and was traveling on the right side of the road as he proceeded; that there was ample room for the automobiles to pass if the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding had not been driven over the center line of the road; that it ‘shot to its left, scratched by the defendant's car and then shot into the banking at the defendant's right, but on the extreme left as the plaintiff was going, the Ford car going in the rear of the defendant's car’; and that there was no camping equipment attached to the left running board of the defendant's automobile.
All witnesses, both for the plaintiff and defendant, who testified on the subject stated that the point of impact was on the defendant's automobile at a place on the left front mud guard four feet from the front, where there was a slight dent, and on the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding on the front wheel hub on the left side. The defendant testified that at the place of the accident the road was about eighteen feet wide. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The case is before this court on an exception to the admission of certain evidence and to the refusal of the presiding judge to give the defendant's fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth requests for rulings. We shall consider the exceptions in the order in which they are argued on the defendant's brief.
1. A physician who had performed an operation on the plaintiff's leg, after describing the operation, was asked by the plaintiff's counsel, ‘Now, Doctor, is that a serious operation?’ His answer was, ‘Yes.’ This question was admitted subject to the defendant's exception. The qualification of the witness to answer is not in issue. The evidence was properly admitted to show the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Monize v. Begaso, 190 Mass. 87, 89, 76 N. E. 460. It did not appear that the defendant's counsel was precluded from interrogating the witness for the purpose of elucidating and explaining the reasons upon which the opinion of the witness was based. See Linton v. Hurley, 14 Gray, 191. The case of Commonwealth v. Burton, 183 Mass. 461, 473, 67 N. E. 419, is not applicable to the facts in the case at bar.
2. The fourth and fifth requests were in substance that the defendant had a right to carry luggage on his automobile, and projecting therefrom as he desired, so long as it did not unreasonably interfere with the use of the highway by other travelers, and that he had a right to assume that other travelers would exercise reasonable care to avoid coming in contact with the automobile or any luggage projecting therefrom. The judge, in substance, gave this instruction. He told the jury that ‘the mere fact that the running board of an automobile carries baggage is not negligence of itself, even if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyes v. Checker Taxi Co.
...a vital issue in the case and might properly be denied on this ground. McDonough v. Vozzela, 247 Mass. 552, 142 N. E. 831;Coates v. Bates, 265 Mass. 444, 164 N. E. 448. The plaintiff was not the operator of the automobile but was a passenger sitting in the rear seat. There was no evidence f......
-
Herman v. Sladofsky
...of contributory negligence in the ordinary sense. White v. Ciriaco, 105 Conn. 553. James v. Von Schuckman, 115 Conn. 490, 493. Coates v. Bates, 265 Mass. 444 But the defendant contends that the plaintiff is barred from recovery as matter of law by reason of the failure of the deceased to tu......
-
Smith v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.Hackett v. Same
...Mass. 424, 428, 41 N. E. 721 (49 Am. St. Rep. 471);Quinn v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 249 Mass. 194, 204, 144 N. E. 53;Coates v. Bates (Mass.) 164 N. E. 448. The contention that the cause of Smith's injuries was conjectural is without merit. Toy v. Mackintosh, 222 Mass. 430, 110 N. E. 1......
-
Keyes v. Checker Taxi Co.
... ... evidence; it was not a vital issue in the case and might ... properly be denied on this ground. McDonough v ... Vozzela, 247 Mass. 552 ... Coates v. Bates, 265 ... Mass. 444 ... The plaintiff was not the operator of the ... automobile but was a guest sitting in the rear seat. There ... was no ... ...