Harrington v. Travers
| Decision Date | 24 October 1934 |
| Citation | 288 Mass. 156,192 N.E. 495 |
| Parties | HARRINGTON v. TRAVERS (two cases). LENEHAN v. SAME (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Division of District Court, Northern District; L. G. Brooks, Special Judge.
Actions of tort by Ann M. Harrington, by Nora Harrington, by Mary E. Lenehan, and by Frank E. Lenehan, against John J. Travers. Findings for plaintiffs for $72, $559, $350, and $2,500, respectively. From an order of the appellate division for the Northern district dismissing a report by the district court, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. G. Ashe, of Leominster, for appellant.
R. T. Bushnell, of Boston, J. J. McCarthy, of Charlestown, and J. Lewiton, of Boston, for appellees.
These are four actions of tort in which the plaintiffs Nora Harrington and Mary E. Lenehan seek to recover for personal injuries; the plaintiff Frank E. Lenehan seeks to recover for expenses incurred for treatment of his wife, who was injured; and the plaintiff Ann M. Harrington seeks to recover for property damage. The cause of action in each case is alleged to be the negligence of the defendant. The actions were brought and tried in the District Court, and there was a finding for the plaintiff in each case.
The plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that the automobile in which the plaintiffs Nora Harrington and Mary E. Lenehan were riding at the time of the accident was being operated by Nora Harrington and was proceeding along the Revere Beach Boulevard at a speed of ten to fifteen miles an hour. Nora Harrington testified that she saw the defendant's automobile parked on the boulevard next to the curb some distance ahead; that when she was within five or seven feet of it, suddenly, and without warning, it backed at an angle, striking the right front fender and wheel of the one she was driving as it turned to avoid the collision. The testimony of the plaintiff Mary E. Lenehan was similar to that above set forth. Both these plaintiffs were injured and the automobile was damaged as a result of the collision.
John Melkonian, a witness called by the plaintiffs, testified that he was in the automobile business and had been engaged in the business of repairing automobiles for fifteen to twenty years; that he had not attended any engineering or technical school, was not an engineer, had never made a study of forces or the action or reaction of forces, and his only experience was as an automobile mechanic. He further testified that after the accident he examined and repaired the automobile in which the two plaintiffs were riding; that the right front fender was damaged, the right front wheel was pushed in, and the housing was damaged. During the examination of this witness certain questions were asked by counsel for the plaintiffs which were admitted, subject to the defendant's exception. The objection in each instance was to the admissibility of the evidence, and to the qualification of the witness to answer the questions. He testified in substance that to damage an automobile like the one in question it must have been hit quite a blow; that such damage could result from a collision with another automobile which was stationary; that the condition of the Harrington automobile was not, and could not have been, so caused when it was running fifteen miles an hour and collided with a standing automobile; that at that speed the damage to the housing could not occur-a tremendous blow would have been required; that it could have occurred when going fifteen miles an hour and another automobile backed into it; that in his opinion the Harrington automobile would have to be going at least twenty-five miles an hour to receive such damage if it struck a stationary vehicle. The trial judge found for the plaintiff in each case, and reported the same to the Appellate Division. That court decided that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lingman
... ... Ogden Union Ry. & Depot Co. , 79 Utah 1, 6, 6 P.2d ... 465; Walkenhorst v. Kesler , 92 Utah 312, ... 332, 67 P.2d 654; Lenehan v. Travers , 288 ... Mass. 156, [97 Utah 189] 192 N.E. 495; Wigmore, Evidence (2nd ... Ed.) Section 561. We find no error in the court's ruling ... that he ... ...
-
Bernier v. Boston Edison Co.
... ... Marston, 310 Mass. 461, 465, 38 N.E.2d 644 (1941); Flynn v. Growers Outlet, Inc., 307 Mass. 373, 30 N.E.2d 250 (1940); Lenehan v. Travers, 288 Mass. 156, 159, 192 N.E. 495 (1934). Moreover, "(i)n determining the qualifications of an offered expert the trial judge has a wide discretion ... ...
-
Stephanofsky v. Hill
... ... Wray and Rogoff cases, supra; Wigmore, loc. cit.; Jackson v. Anthony, 282 Mass. 540, 543, 185 N.E. 389; [136 Conn. 387] Lenehan v. Travers, 288 Mass. 156, 158, 192 N.E. 495; Fannon v. Morton, 228 Ill.App. 415, 426; Luethe v. Schmidt-Gaertner Co., 170 Wis. 590, 594, 176 N.W. 63; Heidner ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Dawn
... ... Spencer, 212 Mass. 438, 448, 99 N.E. 266, Ann.Cas.1913D, 552;Jordan v. Adams Gas Light Co., 231 Mass. 186, 189, 120 N.E. 654; Lenehan v. Travers, 288 Mass. 156, 159, 192 N.E. 495;Adams v. Town of Bolton, Mass., 9 N.E.2d 562, 111 A.L.R. 856. 2. The second assignment of error rests on an ... ...