Glazer v. Grob
| Decision Date | 28 January 1939 |
| Parties | GLAZER v. GROB (four cases). |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions and Motion from Superior Court, Kennebec County.
Actions by Robert M. Glazer, Bessie Gazer, and George B. Chandler against Barney Grob for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, and by Morris Glazer, husband of Bessie Glazer, against Barney Grob for loss of consortium and for medical and other incidental expenses incurred. There were verdicts for defendant, and plaintiffs move for a new trial and except to the refusal of the presiding justice to give certain requested instructions.
Motions and exceptions overruled.
Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.
Berman & Berman, of Lewiston, for plaintiffs.
Locke, Campbell & Reid, of Augusta, and John J. Connor, Jr., of Portland, for defendant.
There are involved here four actions which were tried together. Robert Glazer, Bessie Glazer and George Chandler, gratuitous passengers in an automobile owned and driven by the defendant, sue to recover for personal injuries received when the car left the road on the Newburyport Turnpike in Massachusetts. Morris Glazer, the husband of Bessie, seeks to recover for loss of her consortium and for medical and other incidental expenses incurred in caring for her. The cases were tried under the Massachusetts rule which makes it incumbent on a passenger under such circumstances as these to prove gross negligence on the part of the defendant if a recovery is to be had; and it is conceded that such rule is applicable here.
There are a number of counts, to one of which specifications were asked for by the defendant. The allegations include excessive speed; excessive speed with a too sudden application of the brakes; unsafe, improper and worn tires, coupled with excessive speed and sudden stopping; excessive speed and lack of attention to his duties on the part of the defendant; worn tires, excessive speed resulting in a blowout of the left rear tire.
The trial resulted in verdicts for the defendant and the cases are now before this court on the plaintiffs' general motions for a new trial and on exceptions to the refusal of the presiding justice to give certain requested instructions.
On July 6, 1937, the defendant was driving a 1935 four door Chevrolet sedan easterly on the Newburyport Turnpike, a cement highway thirty feet in width. At the place of the accident the road is straight and runs through open country. The plaintiff, Chandler, was seated in front with the defendant; the plaintiffs, Robert M. Glazer and Bessie Glazer, were on the rear seat. It is admitted that the left rear tire blew out and that the car left the highway and struck a pole standing on the easterly side about eight feet from the edge of the cement.
On the vital questions as to the speed of the car, whether or not it was pursuing a straight course, whether the defendant was paying proper attention to the operation of it, and whether or not the brakes were properly applied, the evidence is conflicting.
The plaintiffs offered evidence that there were tire marks on the cement for approximately two hundred feet. Chandler, Robert Glazer and Bessie Glazer testify that the car was traveling sixty miles an hour or faster, that the defendant had been asked to drive more slowly, that at the time of the accident the defendant had turned his head to speak to those on the back seat and that as he did so the automobile swerved to the right.
He denies that he was traveling over fifty miles an hour, that there were any protests from the other occupants of the car, or that he had turned his head to speak to those on the rear seat. His testimony is to the effect that the accident was caused by the unexpected blowing out of the left rear tire and that after that mishap he did his best to keep the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaulieu v. Beaulieu
...to the protection accorded him by the law where the alleged tort was committed.' (Emphasis supplied.) In Galzer, Chandler v. Grob, 1939, 136 Me. 123, 3 A.2d 895, no issue of conflict of laws developed as the parties conceded the applicability of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti. Thu......
-
Brock v. Sorrell
...standing alone, does not, of itself, render the owner or operator of the motor vehicle liable to an injured passenger. Glazer v. Grob, 136 Me. 123, 3 A.2d 895 (1939). It is incumbent upon a plaintiff to establish that the tire was in some manner defective, and that the operator or the owner......
-
Towle v. Aube
...the principles of law to the various aspects of the facts is a matter in the control of the presiding Justice. Glazer, Chandler v. Grob, 1939, 136 Me. 123, 3 A.2d 895; Bunker v. Gouldsboro, 1889, 81 Me. 188, at B. The other proposed instruction which the presiding Justice refused to give to......
-
Saxon v. Saxon
...upon excessive speed after warnings by passengers, again as here. The statute required wilfulness and wantonness. In Glazer v. Grob, 136 Me. 123, 3 A.2d 895, a left rear tire blew out and the car left the highway and struck a pole. The action was brought under a guest statute requiring gros......