Gauthier v. Quick

• Decision Date: 28 November 1924
• Citation: 250 Mass. 258,145 N.E. 436
• Parties: GAUTHIER v. QUICK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

250 Mass. 258

145 N.E. 436

GAUTHIER

v.QUICK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Nov. 28, 1924.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; C. T. Callahan, Judge.

Action of tort by Anna Gauthier against Addison L. Quick and another, to recover for personal injuries sustained in collision between her person and defendant's automobile. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant named excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Morrissey & Gray, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

Lyman A. Spalding, of New York City, and Scott Adams, of Springfield, for defendant.

SANDERSON, J.

The plaintiff, while walking across Main street in Springfield in the middle of the day, was struck and injured by the automobile of the defendant, in which the defendant was riding and which was being driven at his request, on his business, by one Charles M. Lane. This is an action of tort to recover damages for injuries thus caused.

When the action was begun both Quick and Land were named as defendants, but before trial a discontinuance was entered as to Lane. The only question raised in the case is whether the presiding judge was right in refusing to allow the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The case was submitted on briefs. The defendant has confined the argument in his brief to the issue of the plaintiff's due care.

Main street, in Springfield, at the point where the accident happened, runs almost north and south, and is divided into two sections separated by a green or park. The section west of the green is reserved for traffic going in a southerly direction, and that on the east of the green for traffic moving in a northerly direction. At the time of the accident, the defendant was traveling south in the westerly section of Main street, which is about 30 feet in width, with street car tracks located on its easterly side, next to the curbing of this part of the street. On the westerly side of this section of Main street there is a sidewalk about 12 feet wide. Auburn street comes into Main street from the west. Nearly opposite the point of intersection there is a paved road though the green, which would permit travelers on foot or in vehicles to cross to the easterly section of Main street. The jury took a view.

Upon the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury might have found the following facts: The plaintiff came out of a store on the westerly side of Main street, and walked on the sidewalk to a pole near the curb at the corner of Auburn street, intending to cross the westerly section of Main street to the opening in the green almost directly opposite. Before she stepped into the street, she looked in a northerly direction and saw the defendant's automobile 150 to 200 feet away, traveling in a southerly direction, in the middle of the section which she was about to cross. She decided that she had plenty of time to cross the street. The day was rainy, with a strong wind blowing from the north. She had her umbrella up all the time after she left the store, and held it, as she crossed Main street, so that she could plainly see the street. She had to hold the umbrella with both hands. As soon as she made up her mind that she could safely cross the street, she walked pretty fast straight across toward the next sidewalk, which is on the southerly side of the opening in the green opposite Auburn street, on the path which does not go straight across but on a slant. The wind appeared to blow her a little in a southerly direction as she was crossing, and her umbrella was pointed in the direction from which the storm was coming. When she was halfway across the tracks and about to step on...