Frye v. Kenney

• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MANSER, Justice
• Citation: Frye v. Kenney, 136 Me. 112, 3 A.2d 433 (Me. 1939)
• Decision Date: 12 January 1939
• Parties: FRYE v. KENNEY. LOUNSBURY v. SAME (two cases).

3 A.2d 433

FRYE

v. KENNEY.

LOUNSBURY

v. SAME (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 12, 1939.

On Motion from Superior Court, Penobscot County.

Actions, consolidated for purpose of trial, by William F. Frye, James S. Lounsbury, and Laura U. Lounsbury against Amasa R. Kenney for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. On motions by defendant to set aside verdicts for plaintiffs.

Motions overruled.

Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.

Gillin & Gillin, of Bangor, for plaintiffs.

Fellows & Fellows, of Bangor, for defendant.

MANSER, Justice.

On motions by defendant to set aside verdicts as against the law and evidence. The three cases were tried together and arose from an automobile collision. James R. Lounsbury, one plaintiff, was the owner and operator of one of the cars involved in the accident, the other plaintiffs, Laura U. Lounsbury, his wife, and William R. Frye being passengers in his car.

The accident occurred February 19, 1938 at about 4:30 P. M. on the state highway between Bangor and Orono near the Eastern Maine General Hospital. There was evidence that in the vicinity of the accident the highway is of two-lane cement 18 ft. in width with additional level surface on one side of about 4-1/2 ft. and on the other of approximately 9 ft. The highway runs east and west without appreciable curve for some distance in either direction, but on a sharp grade in the vicinity of the collision. The plaintiffs were proceeding easterly toward Orono and the defendant westerly toward Bangor.

Counsel for defendant argues forcefully that the accident was precipitated from the sudden and uncontrollable skidding of his car, caused solely by the admittedly icy condition of the cement surface and without any precedent or immediate negligence upon his part. It is also claimed, but with lesser cogency, that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, both operator and passengers. Analysis of the record might justify the finding that the hill itself was covered with a thin layer of new ice, although the level roadway approaching from either direction was practically bare; that the defendant negotiated the lower and steeper part of the hill without difficulty, going upgrade, driving at a moderate rate of speed and on the right hand lane of traffic; that suddenly the left rear wheel of his car began to spin and the rear of the car veered slightly toward the center of the road while the forward end pointed toward the right side of the highway; that the predicament was noted by the occupants of the plaintiff car but without any resultant endeavor or action to avoid collision. Thereupon the defendant, so it is contended, did all that a prudent man could be expected to do in such an emergency to correct the skidding motion of his car, but his attempt to steer it into a straight course resulted in its turning sharply to the left side of the road, where it ran head on into the side of the...