Delfino v. Torosian
| Citation | 354 Mass. 395,237 N.E.2d 694 |
| Parties | Mary A. DELFINO et al. v. George A. TOROSIAN. |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1968 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Samuel Perman, Worcester, for defendant.
William A. Murray, Milford (Francis J. Larkin, Milford, with him), for plaintiffs.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a three car automobile collision. The action was brought against two defendants, Amelio T. Danello, Jr. and George A. Torosian. It was first trief in the remand session of the District Court of Western Norfolk. The judge there found for the plaintiffs against the defendant Danello and in favor of the defendant Torosian. Thereafter the case was tried to a jury in the Superior Court. Torosian filed a motion for a directed verdict which was denied. The jury returned a verdict against both Danello and Torosian. Torosian filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. The case is here on Torosian's exceptions to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict and to the denial of his motion for a new trial.
We summarize the evidence most favorable to the plaintiffs. The automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding was traveling in the right hand lane of a State highway at a speed of thirty-five or forty miles an hour. The plaintiffs saw the headlights of Danello's car approaching from the opposite direction, on the wrong side of the road. The plaintiff Ines R. Diomedes (Ines), who was driving, 'slowed down and stopped.' Danello's car, which had been traveling at a high rate of speed, skidded into the front of the plaintiffs' car at an angle. '(A)lmost at the same time,' the plaintiffs' car was struck in the rear by the car driven by Torosian. There was extensive damage to both the front and rear of the automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding. Torosian was traveling some 150 feet behind the plaintiffs' car at a similar speed, thirty-five or forty miles an hour. Torosian 'saw a car flash across the road in front of the car in front of us' but thought that the car 'was pulling into a road or driveway.' He 'saw the brake lights of the car in front of us come on' but 'thought she was just putting on her brakes to slow down.' He then 'applied his brakes not in an emergency attitude, but as if one * * * (were) approaching a red light 100 feet away and slowed down.' The plaintiff Mary Delfino (Mary) 'got tossed frontwards and backwards' by the first impact 'and then there was another car that hit from behind and that was when she went upwards; that she went into the windshield and got deep cuts across her nose over her eye requiring 28 stitches for her face.' The plaintiff Anita Danello (Anita) saw the Danello car approaching and 'braced herself with her hands and turned her face to the left to protect her face and as she turned to the left she saw another car coming from the rear and that was when she heard the first crash which threw her backward like and the second crash felt herself going up hitting the windshield.' Anita required '54 stitches across the face.'
Torosian contends that 'No evidence of (his) negligence * * * is shown on this record having any causal relationship to the injuries of the plaintiffs.' We do not agree. The recited facts include sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant failed to exercise due care in avoiding a collision with the plaintiffs' car. Torosian, in the District Court, testified that he thought he could could have stopped within twenty or twenty-five feet at the speed he was then traveling. Yet he did not stop within 150 feet after he saw the brake lights of the car ahead. The facts bear some resemblance to those in the case of Jennings v. Bragdon, 289 Mass. 595, 194 N.E. 697, and the evidence here, as there, is more than the '(s)light evidence of the circumstances' which 'may place the fault' for a rear end collision. Page 597, 194 N.E. 697.
Torosian contends that there is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs' car, which was pushed backward by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huddell v. Levin
...Washewich v. LeFave, 248 So.2d 670 (Fla.App.1971); Fugere v. Pierce, 5 Wash.App. 592, 490 P.2d 132, 135 (1971); Delfino v. Torosian, 354 Mass. 395, 237 N.E.2d 694 (1968); Holtz v. Holder, 101 Ariz. 247, 418 P.2d 584, 587--88 (1966); Hackworth v. Davis, 87 Idaho 98, 390 P.2d 422, 425--26 (19......
-
Joia v. Jo-Ja Service Corp.
...are held jointly and severally liable, the amount of the judgment is the same against all joint tortfeasors. Delfino v. Torosian, 354 Mass. 395, 237 N.E.2d 694 (1968). Under Massachusetts statutory law, a joint tortfeasor who pays more than his pro rata share of the judgment has an action f......
- People v. Walker
-
Forte v. Muzi Motors, Inc.
...to the discretion of the trial judge. Eillingsgard v. Silver, 352 Mass. 34, 39-40, 223 N.E.2d 813 (1967); Delfino v. Torosian, 354 Mass. 395, 399, 237 N.E.2d 694 (1968). The same is true of a motion for relief from judgment. Trustees of Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Administratio......