Dietz v. Morris
| Decision Date | 09 June 1953 |
| Citation | 98 A.2d 537,149 Me. 9 |
| Parties | DIETZ v. MORRIS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
John E. Wilson and Ralph A. Gallager, Damariscotta, for plaintiff.
William B. Mahoney and James R. Desmond, Portland, for defendant.
Before MERRILL, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, NULTY, WILLIAMSON, and TIRRELL, JJ.
This is an action based on the defendant's negligence in parking his truck in the nighttime on No. 1 highway in the town of Warren. Taking the evidence as we must most favorably for the plaintiff, as we recently said in the case of Savoy v. Butler, Me.1953, 97 A.2d 543, it appears that the defendant's truck was driven by his agent and employee, who left it parked in the nighttime on said highway facing westerly, without lights or flares as required by statute. The defendant concedes that so far as his own negligence is concerned there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury. While the truck was so left on said highway, the plaintiff collided with it while approaching it from the rear travelling in a general westerly or southwesterly direction. The action is for personal injuries and damages to the plaintiff's automobile. The plaintiff had been travelling at a speed of 40 or 45 miles an hour as he approached the defendant's truck.
The defendant pleaded the general issue. The burden was thereby placed on the plaintiff to establish his own due care. At the conclusion of all the evidence the defendant, claiming that the plaintiff had failed to establish such due care, asked for a directed verdict which the presiding justice granted on the authority of Spang v. Cote, 144 Me. 338, 68 A.2d 823. The case is before us on an exception to this ruling.
The black top or travelled part of the road was 22 feet in width with hard shoulders on each side of approximately 2 1/2 feet. The night was clear and the road dry. The plaintiff was coming out of a wide curve from the east; the defendant's car was parked about 270 feet ahead of him as he emerged on the straightaway. How far he could see from the curve down the straightaway does not clearly appear; but it must have been more than 100 yards. No sudden emergency could have been created as he came out of the curve. The left-hand wheels of the defendant's truck were resting about 8 feet on the traveled part of the highway. In spite of these seemingly favorable conditions he did not see the parked truck on his side of the highway in front of him until he was within 30 or 40 feet of it....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanborn v. Stone
...Me. 133, 48 A.2d 367; Cole v. Wilson, 127 Me. 316, 143 A. 178; Baker v. McGary Transportation Co., 140 Me. 190, 36 A.2d 6; Dietz v. Morris, 149 Me. 9, 98 A.2d 537, involved the question of headlights or blinding lights, and the rules given above of due care are applied. The case of Dietz v.......
-
Scammon v. City of Saco
...plainly visible directly in front of her. Her lack of attention is negligence as a matter of law and bars her recovery. Dietz v. Morris, 149 Me. 9, 98 A.2d 537 (1953). Mr. Keens was a passenger. The guest passenger has the duty to exercise that degree of care for his own safety which the pa......