Gagnon v. Rhode Island Co.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1917
• Docket Number: No. 5022.,5022.
• Citation: 101 A. 104,40 R.I. 473
• Parties: GAGNON v. RHODE ISLAND CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

101 A. 104

40 R.I. 473

GAGNON

v. RHODE ISLAND CO.

No. 5022.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 5, 1917.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles F. Stearns, Judge.

Action by Eleanore Gagnon against the Rhode Island Company. Verdict for plaintiff, new trial denied, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted for entry of judgment.

Archambault & Jalbert, of Woonsocket, for plaintiff. Clifford Whipple and Alonzo R. Williams, both of Providence, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. This is an action of trespass on the case brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff through negligence of the defendant. The case was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied by said justice. The case is before us upon the defendant's exception to the decision of said justice on the motion for a new trial and upon exceptions taken by the defendant to certain rulings of said justice made in the course of the trial.

It appears that the defendant's car track on John street near Pleasant street in the city of Woonsocket is laid on the westerly side of the roadway in John street, the westerly rail of said track being 2 feet and 10 inches from the curbstone of the westerly sidewalk of John street. Near the corner of John and Pleasant streets said track begins to curve toward the east and runs into Pleasant street. In passing upon and around said curve the rear of a double-truck car of the defendant begins to overlap the westerly sidewalk of John street and continues to so overlap the sidewalk for a considerable distance, the greatest overlapping being 15 inches at one point. On the day of the occurrence complained of, the plaintiff, in company with two other women, was walking in a southerly direction on the westerly sidewalk of John street; the plaintiff being the one nearest to the curbstone. There was testimony from which the jury might find that the servants of the defendant were operating one of the defendant's double-truck cars on said John street behind said plaintiff; and, without warning or care for the safety of the plaintiff, when the danger to the plaintiff must have been apparent to the servants of the defendant, they drove said car around said curve, whereby the rear of said car projected over a portion of the westerly sidewalk of John street, struck the plaintiff, knocked her down, and inflicted serious injuries upon her. The justice presiding refused to disturb the verdict in respect to the finding of liability or the assessment of damages. After an examination of the transcript of evidence, we find no reason for overruling his decision.

The defendant's exceptions to the refusal of said justice to...