Harriman v. Spaulding
| Decision Date | 21 October 1960 |
| Citation | 165 A.2d 47,156 Me. 440 |
| Parties | William F. HARRIMAN v. Everett W. SPAULDING. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Berman, Berman, Wernick & Flaherty, Portland, by Thmas F. Monahan, Portland, for plaintiff.
Charles W. Smith, Saca, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, DUBORD and SIDDALL, JJ.
This case is before us by way of an appeal under the provisions of Rule 73 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
The cause is an action to recover for damages to personal property, arising out of an automobile accident. Both parties were proceeding in a northerly direction on a public highway leading from Kennebunk to Biddeford, in the County of York. The defendant was operating a truck loaded with junk. The plaintiff was operating a passenger vehicle and proceeding behind the defendant. The plaintiff contended that after sounding his horn, he attempted to overtake and pass the defendant in the lane to the left of the defendant; and that as he came abreast of the defendant, the latter without any indication as to his intention propelled his car sharply to his left, bringing about a collision between the two vehicles.
The case was heard by a single justice without the intervention of a jury and after listening to the evidence, a finding in favor of the plaintiff was entered.
The defendant advances two grounds as a basis for his appeal. First, he says that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and second that the findings of the trial court were clearly erroneous.
An examination of the record indicates numerous contradictions of fact. Plaintiff testified that the defendant appeared upon the highway from the right or easterly side of the highway and that just prior to the collision, was operating his truck in the extreme easterly lane of a four lane highway; and that the accident occurred in the third lane which would be the one to the left of the lane in which the defendant was driving before he made the turn which resulted in the collision.
The defendant, on the other hand, says that he had reached the highway from the westerly side where he had had his load of junk weighed upon certain available scales, and that he had returned to the highway with the intention of leaving it for the westerly side within about one hundred yards, for the purpose of delivering his load of junk. He says he was driving in the middle lane of a three lane highway.
The defendant contended that he had his directional lights on indicating his intention of making a left turn. This the plaintiff denied.
It is rather strange that there should be an unresolved conflict of evidence as to whether the parties to the action were operating their vehicles on a three lane or a four lane highway. It seems as if this point should have been one subject to agreement or stipulation, or at least definite proof. Failure of the parties to adduce this proof leaves much to be desired.
In any event, whether the highway had three lanes or four lanes is not important in the instant case. It is clear that the collision occurred in the lane next left to that in which the defendant had been driving before the collision occurred.
In support of his contention that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, defendant invokes subsection II, Section 114, Chapter 22, R.S.1954, which reads as follows:
The defendant argues that an accident occurring in the lane to the left of the center lane of a three lane highway spells negligence on the part of the motor vehicle operator who passes, or attempts to pass, in such a lane. With this contention we cannot agree. Assuming that there is no on-coming traffic in the left lane, we cannot say as a matter of law that a driver who passes, or attempts to pass, a motor vehicle which is in the center lane is guilty of negligence. There is no evidence in this case that there was any oncoming traffic in the lane in which the accident occurred.
Moreover, subsection I, of the same section of the statutes provides that 'a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.' There was evidence to substantiate a finding that the defendant violated this section.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dilios' Will, In re
...of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.' As pointed out in the very recent decision of Harriman v. Spaulding, 156 Me. 440, 165 A.2d 47, this rule now spells out in definite and positive language the applicable standard previously set forth in a long line of decision......
-
Matthews v. R. T. Allen & Sons, Inc.
...before and after the adoption of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Ray v. Lyford, 153 Me. 408, 140 A.2d 749 (1958); Harriman v. Spaulding, 156 Me. 440, 165 A.2d 47 (1960); Field, McKusick and Wroth, Maine Civil Practice, supra, 52.7, 52.8, However, this case is presented to us in an unusu......
-
Longworth, In re
...testimony. Barton v. Beck Estate, 159 Me. 446, 195 A.2d 63; Bouchard et al. v. Johnson, 157 Me. 41, 170 A.2d 372; Harriman v. Spaulding, 156 Me. 440, 165 A.2d 47. The appellants urge that this Court should make its own independent evaluation of undue influence. The argument is in substance ......
-
Leonard, In re
...prior to the rules to findings of a single justice sitting in law or equity or in the Supreme Court of Probate.' See Harriman v. Spaulding, 156 Me. 440, 165 A.2d 47 (1960).4 This witness was aware of the contents of the will because she had personally typed it.5 At oral argument it was conc......