Foley v. Lord

• Decision Date: 01 March 1919
• Citation: 232 Mass. 368,122 N.E. 393
• Parties: FOLEY v. LORD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

232 Mass. 368

122 N.E. 393

FOLEY

v.LORD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1919.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Lloyd E. White, Judge.

Action of tort for personal injuries and for damages to an automobile by Charles A. Foley against James F. Lord. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions sustained.

John E. Crowley, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston (E. C. Stone, of Boston, of counsel), for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The action is tort for personal injuries, and for damages to the plaintiff's automobile alleged to have been caused by the carelessness of the defendant while operating an automobile driven by himself. The evidence tended to show and the jury could find that the plaintiff's car was standing on the right hand side of a public street near the corner of an intersecting street when an automobile truck owned by a partnership known as Miller & Lakin and driven by one of their chauffeurs while engaged in their business ran into the rear of the plaintiff's car causing the injury and damages previously described. It was the plaintiff's contention that the defendant was responsible because he so operated his car while coming down the street where the plaintiff's car was standing that the chauffeur of the Miller & Lakin truck which was passing over the intersecting street at right angles with the street where the plaintiff's car stood, was forced to change the direction of his truck to avoid a collision, and in doing so ran into the plaintiff's car. The defendant contended that the driver of the Miller & Lakin truck was solely responsible for the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is before us on the defendant's exceptions to the admission and exclusion of evidence, and to a portion of the judge's charge.

The plaintiff, who had been an owner of automobiles for 14 years and acquainted with the operation of an automobile truck, was rightly permitted in the discretion of the presiding judge to give his opinion, that from the mark on the street curbing which ran back from the rear of the defendant's car for 30 or 40 feet, the wheels were locked by the brake, and if the car was going at the rate of 8 or even 15 miles an hour, it ought to have stopped when the brakes were set within a distance of 12 feet. Com. v. Thompson, 159 Mass. 56, 33 N. E. 1111;Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway, 200 Mass. 527, 86 N. E. 793.

The evidence offered by the defendant that Miller & Lakin had offered to settle with counsel for the plaintiff the claim against them for $1,000 was rightly excluded. The sum for which Miller & Lakin were willing to buy their peace had no probative bearing upon either the defendant's liability, or the amount of damages, if the plaintiff was found entitled to recover as against him. It was after the exclusion of this evidence that the plaintiff recalled the defendant and without any exception being taken asked, ‘Let's see, have you sued Miller & Lakin?’ to which the witness...