Foster v. De Andrade, 9913
Decision Date | 23 March 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 9913,9913 |
Citation | 149 A.2d 713,88 R.I. 442 |
Parties | Ernest A. FOSTER, Adm'r v. Alvaro DE ANDRADE, Jr. Ex. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
John F. McBurney, Pawtucket, for plaintiff.
Joseph V. Ortoleva, Providence, for defendant.
This action of trespass on the case for negligence was brought by the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Mary Nadolnik, deceased, under the provisions of general laws 1956, § 10-7-1, of the Death by Wrongful Act statute. The case was tried in the superior court before a justice thereof sitting with a jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,690.35. It is before us on the defendant's bill of exceptions to specific evidentiary rulings of the trial justice taken during the trial and also on what the plaintiff calls a general exception that the verdict was excessive and contrary to the law and the evidence and the weight thereof.
We shall refer only to the portion of the evidence which is pertinent to the issues that are properly before us. The defendant has expressly waived exceptions numbered 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10. Therefore, the only ones before us are 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and defendant's general exception.
The jury returned the verdict for plaintiff on January 30, 1958. Within seven days thereafter defendant filed his notice of intention to prosecute a bill of exceptions to this court. On March 13, 1958 he filed such a bill containing twelve specific exceptions to rulings made during the trial. On March 14, 1958, with the approval of the trial justice, he added the general exception that 'the decision for plaintiff for $3690.35 is excessive and contrary to the law and the evidence and weight thereof.'
We shall first consider defendant's general exception. Before doing so we point out, for the sake of accuracy, that this case resulted in verdict for plaintiff, not a decision as defendant states in his general exception. It is clear from the record that defendant did not file a motion for a new trial. In such circumstances his objection to the verdict cannot be considered under such exception. Dolbashian v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., 53 R.I. 462, 463, 167 A. 262; James v. Rhode Island Auditorium, Inc., 60 R.I. 405, 415, 199 A. 293.
There remains for our consideration defendant's exceptions to evidentiary rulings. It is undisputed that the decedent was struck by a motor vehicle operated by defendant on December 17, 1956 at 7:30 p. m. The accident occurred while she was crossing Lonsdale avenue at or near its intersection with Kendall street in the city of Central Falls. The decedent was taken to a hospital where she died on December 19, 1956.
In cross-examination plaintiff was asked by defendant's counsel whether he knew that defendant was tried in the district court at Central Falls. The trial justice sustained plaintiff's objection to such question. This is defendant's fourth exception. In our opinion such ruling was correct. The information sought by defendant was immaterial and irrelevant. Criminal proceedings are not a prerequisite to an action based upon death by wrongful act. General laws 1956, § 10-7-9. This exception is overruled.
In direct examination defendant was asked by his counsel whether or not he had been charged by the Pawtucket or Central Falls police with speeding in relation to the accident in question. The plaintiff's objection was sustained by the trial justice. Our ruling with respect to exception 4 applies with equal force to the instant exception 12. Such exception is therefore overruled.
Exception 5 relates to testimony by decedent's daughter, over defendant's objection, concerning a statement made to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ruggieri v. Ventalume Window & Door Products, Inc.
...the ground that it is against the evidence or the law. Gramolini v. Marzalkowski, 102 R.I. 85, 88, 228 A.2d 537, 538; Foster v. DeAndrade, 88 R.I. 442, 444, 149 A.2d 713; 715; James v. R. I. Auditorium, Inc., 60 R.I. 405, 415, 199 A. 293, 298; Dolbashian v. R. I. Hospital Trust Co., 53 R.I.......
-
RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST COMPANY v. United States
...Rhode Island, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9-19-11 of Chapter 19 of the General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956. Foster v. De Andrada, 1959, 88 R.I. 442, 149 A.2d 713; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company v. Letendre, 1950, 77 R.I. 411, 75 A.2d Mr. Gibbons, one of counsel for the plainti......
-
Gramolini v. Marzalkowski, 21
...verdict, he is foreclosed from our consideration of either the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Foster v. De Andrade, 88 R.I. 442, 444, 149 A.2d 713; James v. Rhode Island Auditorium, Inc., 60 R.I. 405, 415, 199 A. 293; Dolbashian v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., 5......