Dumas v. Labonte
| Decision Date | 24 March 1966 |
| Citation | 218 A.2d 369 |
| Parties | Henry DUMAS v. Leo Paul LABONTE. Jeannette DUMAS v. Leo Paul LABONTE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
T. A. Fitanides, Biddeford, for plaintiffs.
Verrill, Dana, Walker, Philbrick & Whitehouse, by John A. Mitchell, and Leon V. Walker, Portland, for defendant.
Before WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, RUDMAN and DUFRESNE, JJ.
The plaintiffs were awarded jury verdicts for damages in these companion cases arising from an intersection collision of two automobiles. A motion in each case for judgment for the defendant n.o.v. was denied. The issue on appeal is whether or not the plaintiff driver was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Howe v. Houde, 137 Me. 119, 15 A.2d 740; McMann v. Reliable Furniture Co., (1958) 153 Me. 383, 385, 140 A.2d 736.
A jury could have found that Mrs. Dumas, driving north on Bradbury Street in Biddeford in the early afternoon of June 7, 1963, came to a stop at a stop sign controlling traffic about to enter Main Street; that the car ahead of her moved into the intersection; that she then pulled ahead and to her right to permit a truck to make a right turn from Main Street into Bradbury Street, clearing her car on its left as the truck proceeded southerly on Bradbury Street; that she again came to full stop with the front of her car about at the curb line of Main Street from where she had an unobstructed view easterly along Main Street to its intersection with Route #1 494 feet away; that a car driven by one Means was then stopped on Main Street heading easterly and ready to enter the intersection from her left; that she received from Means a wave or other indication that she was to precede him through the intersection; that she looked to her right and saw the defendant's car just starting off 'very, very slowly' at a point on Main Street estimated by one witness as about 400 feet from the intersection; that she then drove into the intersection and proceeded straight across at a speed estimated as six or seven miles per hour; that when the front of her car had cleared the intersection on the opposite side she looked again to her right and saw the defendant's car coming toward her about 50 feet away and traveling 'at a high rate of speed', 'at least 50 miles per hour'; that the right rear of her vehicle was struck almost immediately, pushed at least fifteen feet in a westerly direction and spun around 90 in the street. The posted speed controlling traffic proceeding on Main Street was twenty-five miles per hour. The defendant's car left brake marks extending 32 feet to the point of impact. Disinterested witnesses gave other and additional evidence tending to corroborate the plaintiff's estimate of defendant's excessive speed.
29 M.R.S.A. Sec. 949 contains the rules which governed the conduct of these drivers. The pertinent portions in effect in 1963 are as follows:
'* * *, every driver of a vehicle approaching a * * * stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop, and after having stopped shall yield the right of way to any vehicle * * * which is approaching so closely on said highway as to constitute an immediate hazard, but said driver having so yielded may proceed and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection shall yield the right of way to the vehicle so proceeding.' (Emphasis ours)
It is apparent that the plaintiff as she looked to her right and observed the apparent speed of the defendant's automobile approximately 400 feet away was required in the exercise of due care to make such a reasonable judgment as a man of ordinary prudence would make as to whether or not it was approaching so closely 'as to constitute an immediate hazard.' If not, and she then properly committed herself to the intersection, it became the statutory duty of the defendant to yield the right of way to her. The plaintiff had to cross an intersection 44 feet and 8 inches wide. Making allowance for the normal length of a car, she could fairly assume that her vehicle would completely clear the intersection in approximately 6 or 7 seconds. Traveling within the posted limit, the defendant would require at least 10 or 11 seconds to arrive at the intersection. Although one situated as was this plaintiff is not expected or required to make mathematical computations before entering an intersection, such computations made from the advantageous position of hindsight will often shed light on the reasonableness of the split second decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Hohman
...him there was a course of action which he could have taken which would have enabled him to have avoided the collision. Dumas v. Labonte, Me., 218 A.2d 369 (1966); Tinker v. Trevett, 155 Me. 426, 156 A.2d 233 While the physical evidence of the debris which was spread across the south lane of......
-
Donovan v. Luce
...manifestly wrong. We take the evidence with all proper inferences in the light most favorable to the finding of the jury. Dumas v. Labonte, Me., 218 A.2d 369; McMann v. Reliable Furniture Co., 153 Me. 383, 140 A.2d 736; Field & McKusick, Maine Civil Practice, § The jury could properly have ......