Fitts v. Marquis

• Decision Date: 15 March 1928
• Citation: 140 A. 909
• Parties: FITTS v. MARQUIS. MARQUIS v. FITTS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

140 A. 909

FITTS

v. MARQUIS.

MARQUIS

v. FITTS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 15, 1928.

On motion from Superior Court, Penobscot County.

Separate actions by Roswell A. Fitts against Dennis N. Marquis, and by Dennis N. Marquis against Roswell A. Fitts. Verdicts for defendant in first ease, and for plaintiff in second case. On motions for new trial. Motions overruled.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, BARNES, BASSETT, and PATTANGALL, JJ.

Ross St. Germain, of Bangor, for Roswell A. Fitts.

William S. Cole, of Bangor, for Dennis N. Marquis.

DUNN, J. Union street in Bangor, it approximates accuracy to say, runs northwest and southeast. Fourteenth street, which crosses Union, runs generally northeast and southwest.

On November 6, 1926, about 4:30 in the afternoon, the automobile of Roswell A. Fitts, then being driven for him by his son was going northwesterly along Union street, bound toward and beyond Fourteenth. Dennis N. Marquis was driving his own automobile in a northeasterly direction on Fourteenth street, approaching Union which entered at his right. The two automobiles collided at the intersection of the streets and were damaged.

Mr. Fitts sued Mr. Marquis, and Mr. Marquis sued Mr. Fitts. On trial of the actions together in the superior court in Penobscot county, Mr. Marquis won both cases.

Motions for new trials, each on the ground that the verdict offends law and is against evidence, have been argued to the law court in behalf of Mr. Fitts.

The law of the road has this provision:

"All vehicles shall have the right of way over other vehicles approaching at intersecting public ways from the left, and shall give the right of way to those approaching from the right. * * *" 1923 Laws, c. 9.

This right of way is not absolute. The statute is a road regulation and not an inflexible standard by which to decide questions which arise over collisions at intersections of roads. The law does not confer the right of way without reference to the distance of the vehicles from the intersecting point, their speed, and respective duties. Precedence is not given under all circumstances to a vehicle, on the right against a vehicle from the left. No driver, and especially no driver of an automobile, has leave to approach an intersection without using reasonable watchfulness and caution to have his vehicle under control. When approaching a highway crossing, as elsewhere on the public ways, eternal vigilance is essential to the practical matter of driving automobiles. If a situation indicate collision, the driver, who can do so by the exercise of ordinary care, should avoid doing injury, though this involve that he waive his right of way. The supreme rule of the road is the rule of mutual forbearance. Mark v. Fritsch, 195 N. Y. 282, 283, 284, 88 N. E. 380, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, 133 Am. St. Rep. 800.

What is the purpose of the statute? Care, commensurate with the necessity for care, for the assurance of safety.

A right of way, it has been said, like a burden of proof, will establish precedence when rights might otherwise be balanced. Ward v. Clark, 232 N. Y. 195, 133 N. E. 443.

When a reasonably prudent man driving a vehicle on a public street, and approaching another street on which is a vehicle coming from his right, might otherwise be in doubt whether his or the other vehicle should go through the intersection first, the injunction of the statute operates that he yield to that other.

Moreover, if a...