Green v. Hoffarth

• Decision Date: 17 December 1931
• Citation: 178 N.E. 828,277 Mass. 508
• Parties: GREEN v. HOFFARTH (three cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

277 Mass. 508

178 N.E. 828

GREEN

v.HOFFARTH (three cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Dec. 17, 1931.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Essex County; H. T. Lummus, Judge.

Separate actions by Edmund H. Green and Mary A. Green against Leonard Hoffarth, in which verdicts were rendered for plaintiffs. On defendant's exceptions.

Exceptions overruled in each case.

M. A. Sullivan, of Lawrence, for plaintiffs.

A. E. Yont, of Boston, for defendant.

SANDERSON, J.

Two of these actions were brought by husband and wife for personal injuries and the third was brought by the husband for consequential damages resulting from the collision of a truck with an automobile operated by the defendant, in which they were riding as his guests. The jury found for the plaintiffs, and the defendant excepted to the refusal of the trial judge to direct verdicts in his favor, to his refusal to give certain instructions, to certain statements in his charge to the jury, and to the exclusion and admission of certain evidence.

The road on which the accident happened was constructed of macadam, thirty-five to forty feet in width. The injuries were sustained at about nine o'clock on a misty, foggy night in June, when the defendant, who was operating the automobile without a license, drove it into the rear of the truck with front lights lighted but with no light in the rear, having upon it seven or eight gas tanks of a gray color. The jury could have found that the truck with no one in it was standing on the defendant's right-hand side of the road and headed in the direction in which he was traveling, with all wheels, except the left rear wheel, off the macadam and on the reservation to the right, with emergency brakes set, and that electric lights in the neighborhood threw considerable light on the road. On the night in question the sun set at 8:23 p. m. daylight saving time.

The driver of the truck testified that he and another man were standing in front of it about two feet away when the collision occurred, resulting in driving the truck against them and knocking one of them down. The evidence tended to prove that at the time of the collision there was a ‘terrible crash’ and that the rear of the truck rose in the air and was turned around to the left by the force of the collision; that the top of the defendant's automobile was off, the front gone and that the car was nothing but a ‘mass of wreckage.’ The defendant himself was thrown out through the windshield. There was testimony that the speed of the defendant's automobile at the time was from thirty to forty miles an hour. One of the plaintiffs saw the truck when about forty feet away and the other when about twenty-five feet away, and they both shouted a warning, but the defendant at the time was turned around in his seat with his eyes on the male plaintiff, who was sitting in the back seat. One of them testified that before the driver could regain his position and control the car the collision occurred. The defendant testified that on the night in question he could see ahead a distance of fifty feet but that he did not see the truck until he was within ten or fifteen feet of it; that it was off the road and not within his field of vision until it backed out in front of him. He had been warned by both plaintiffs shortly before, when turning toward the back seat, to be careful and to watch the road. After the accident the defendant said: ‘I know it is my fault. If I had been watching the road it wouldn't have happened.’

[1][2] Testimony was introduced tending to prove that the female plaintiff had made a settlement with the owner of the truck and had given her a covenant not to sue signed by her and her husband in connection with their claim for personal injuries and consequential damages...