Frank C. Fletcher v. Henry R. White

Decision Date05 February 1946
PartiesFRANK C. FLETCHER v. HENRY R. WHITE
CourtVermont Supreme Court

January Term, 1946.

Relation of Proximate Cause to Negligence.

1. Although when approaching an intersection a motor vehicle operator has the right of way over traffic coming on his left, and may assume, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the other operator will approach and enter the crossing with due care, he is not relieved from an equal compliance with the statute governing conduct in entering an intersection.

2. The duty of care in entering an intersection becomes the more imperative with an increase of hazards.

3. Negligence as a ground of recovery must be shown to have been a proximate cause of the injuries complained of.

4. The rule that recovery may be had for damages resulting from negligence only when such negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries complained of applies to cases involving breach of a safety statute.

TORT for negligence in operation of automobile. Trial by jury Windsor County Court, June Term, 1945. Hughes, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Ryan Smith & Carbine for the defendant.

Clayton H. Kinney for the plaintiff.

Present MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, STURTEVANT, JEFFORDS, JJ., and CLEARY, Supr. J.

OPINION
MOULTON

This is an action in tort brought to recover damages sustained in an automobile collision. The verdict and judgment below were for the plaintiff and the defendant has brought the cause to this court on an exception to the overruling of his motion for a directed verdict.

The defendant concedes his own negligence, but insists that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and therefore should be denied recovery.

The evidence taken in the most favorable light for the plaintiff left it open to the jury to find these facts: The accident happened at Stockbridge Four Corners, so called, where the highway leading east from Pittsfield to Stockbridge Common crossed the highway leading south from Rochester to Bethel at a right angle. The plaintiff was driving from Pittsfield to Stockbridge Common. Just before he reached the intersection a bank, or mound, some ten feet high with a sand pile upon it rendered it impossible for him to see whether the road towards Rochester was clear of traffic until the front wheels of his automobile were two or three feet from the intersection and his view then extended forty to fifty feet to the north. There is an ascending grade on the Pittsfield road at that point, and a descending grade and a slight curve on the Rochester road just before the crossing, which further obstructed the plaintiff's view to the north. As he approached the intersection the plaintiff shifted gears and reduced his speed from twenty-five miles an hour to about twenty miles an hour. He looked to his left and saw nothing approaching and then to his right with the same result. When he had reached the middle of the intersection he saw the defendant's car coming toward him from the north, twenty or twenty-five feet away, on the left hand side of the Rochester road, at an estimated speed of twenty-five to thirty miles an hour, and he turned to his right to avoid the collision, but without success. The plaintiff's automobile was beyond the median line of the crossing when the accident took place, and wheel marks in the road indicated that the defendant's automobile had been in the middle of the road about sixty feet from the point of collision and had then turned to the left until it was on the left of the middle of the highway to the extent of the width of the vehicle when the two cars came together.

Although the plaintiff had the right of way over traffic coming on his left, that is, from the north, (P. L. 5110-II), the fact that he was about to enter the intersection from the favored direction did not give him exclusive rights over a vehicle approaching from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Aram Dicranian v. Carl Foster
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1946
  • Lester Bressett v. Francis O'hara
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1950
    ... ... Molla for the defendant ...          Russell ... E. White for the plaintiff ...          Present: ... SHERBURNE, C. J., ... 903; Page v. McGovern, 110 Vt ... 166, 171, 3 A.2d 543; Fletcher" v. White, ... 114 Vt. 377, 379, 45 A.2d 569 ... [70 A.2d 241] ...  \xC2" ... ...
  • Harley C. Brown v. Walter P. Gallipeau
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1950
    ... ... disfavored direction. Fletcher v. White, ... [116 Vt. 296] 114 Vt. 377, 379, 45 A.2d 569; Reid v ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT