Hagerty v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 30 October 1936 |
| Citation | 4 N.E.2d 463,295 Mass. 581 |
| Parties | HAGERTY v. TYLER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Donahue, Judge.
Action of tort by C. Irene Hagerty against Daniel Tyler. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, and the plaintiff saved exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C. H. Nicholson, of Boston, for plaintiff.
R. J Lavelle, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort brought to recover for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
It appears that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was operating her automobile on Massachusetts Avenue from Cambridge southerly toward Boston, and the defendant was operating his automobile on Memorial Drive in an easterly direction from Brookline toward Boston; that there was a collision of these automobiles at the intersection of the ways. On the date of the accident there was an underpass in process of construction at the intersection. Memorial Drive was divided into two sections of roadway, northerly and southerly. The intersection was controlled by two officers, one on the northerly side and the other on the southerly side. The plaintiff testified in substance that upon signal from the officer she stopped before entering the northerly part of the intersection, and then upon signal from this officer she proceeded into the intersection, passed through the northerly half, and was almost through the southerly half when her automobile was struck on the right side by the front of the defendant's automobile. The defendant testified in substance that upon approaching the intersection an officer signaled him to proceed, and that his automobile was in collision with the plaintiff's.
It is stated in the record that there was other conflicting evidence as to the courses of both automobiles, and the precise place where the collision occurred; and that the evidence as to the speed of the defendant's automobile at the time of the collision was conflicting. The defendant and witnesses called by him testified that his speed was between thirty-five and twenty miles an hour. Called by the plaintiff for cross-examination, he was asked by counsel for the plaintiff: ‘ Now, before you left did you give your chauffeur some instructions?’ and he replied: ‘ As I remember it I did.’ Q. ‘ What instructions did you give him?’ This question was excluded subject to the plaintiff's exception. The plaintiff offered to prove that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cataldo v. Woodside
...defendant. The principal defendant neither appeared nor answered, and was defaulted. The alleged trustee, an insurance company, filed an [4 N.E.2d 463]answer stating that at the time of the service of the writ upon it, it had no goods, wares or effects belonging to the principal defendant a......
- Cataldo v. Woodside
-
Hagerty v. Tyler
...295 Mass. 5814 N.E.2d 463HAGERTYv.TYLER.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.Oct. 30, Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Donahue, Judge. Action of tort by C. Irene Hagerty against Daniel Tyler. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, and the plaintiff saved e......