Holt v. Grimard.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 3633.,3633. |
| Citation | 51 A.2d 149 |
| Parties | HOLT v. GRIMARD. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Tobin, Judge.
Action on the case for negligence by Lucille Holt against Ferand Grimard for damages arising out of an automobile collision. Cause transferred on plaintiff's exception to an order granting defendant's motion for directed verdict.
New trial.
Case, for negligence to recover damages arising out of a collision between the plaintiff's automobile, in which she was a passenger, and an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered personal injuries and her automobile was damaged. The collision occurred at about 4:00 A. M. on December 25, 1939, as both vehicles were proceeding northerly on the Londonderry Turnpike, approximately two miles beyond East Derry village. Other facts appear in the opinion. Trial by jury. Transferred by Tobin, J., upon the plaintiff's exception to an order granting the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell, of Manchester (R. E. Langdell, of Manchester, orally), for plaintiff.
Thorp & Branch, of Manchester (F. W. Branch, of Manchester, orally), for defendant.
Shortly before the plaintiff's automobile arrived at the scene of the accident, the defendant stopped his automobile at the side of the road beyond the crest of a hill, to permit some of the passengers to alight temporarily. The automobile was wholly off the travelled way, and its lights were extinguished. Upon the passenger's return, the defendant turned on the lights, but finding that the starter failed to work successfully, again extinguished them, and requested two of the passengers to push the car along the slight down grade. It could be found that the vehicle, without lights, was so pushed a distance of approximately fifteen feet, diagonally out onto the travelled way. The motor then started, the two passengers undertook to re-enter the rear seat through doors which had remained open, and almost instantly the left rear of the automobile was struck by the right front of the plaintiff's automobile. The defendant testified that as soon as the motor started, he turned on the lights. The plaintiff's evidence warranted a finding that at all times while the defendant's automobile was visible from the plaintiff's car, the lights were out, and the rear doors open.
The plaintiff's automobile was travelling at a speed of thirty-five to forty miles an hour as it ascended the hill. It was operated by Charles Stephens, the plaintiff being the only other occupant of the front seat. The driver was unfamiliar with the highway, but it was free from ice and snow, and comparatively straight. The weather was clear. The defendant's automobile was first seen, directly ahead in the highway, as the plaintiff's automobile came over the top of the hill and its lights deflected downward. The operator testified that he applied the brakes at once, but because they locked, was unable to turn the vehicle far enough to the left to avoid collision.
Construed most favorably to the plaintiff, the evidence warranted a finding that the defendant was negligent. It could be found that in starting his car in the manner already described, he entered upon the travelled way without lights, and without undertaking, after his vehicle was in motion, to watch for vehicles approaching from the rear. It could be found that a glance to the rear would have enabled the defendant to see the light from the plaintiff's automobile in season to avert the accident. The motor could have been started by pushing the automobile along the shoulder, which was wide and firm for some distance.
The defendant argues strongly that the operator of the plaintiff's car was conclusively shown to be negligent because of the speed at which he drove over the top of the hill. In support of his position he relies upon Fine v. Parella, 92 N. H. 81, 25 A.2d 121, and Tufts v. White, 92 N. H. 158, 26 A.2d 679. In the latter case, it was the plaintiff's own claim that visibility at the top of a grade was limited to twenty feet by a blanket of fog into which his automobile was driven at a speed requiring a stopping distance of sixty to sixty-five feet. The evidence of contributory negligence was plain, and thought to be conclusive. In the case before us, there was no fog to obscure vision. So far as appears, there was nothing to affect the view ahead, except darkness and the hill which intervened between the two vehicles until the plaintiff's automobile reached some point at or near the top. The Tufts case is not so analogous as to be controlling. The same may be said of Cole v. Morse, 85 N. H. 214, 155 A. 694, cited in the Tufts case. There it appeared that the defendant undertook to pass an automobile on a hill, the grade of which was such that he could not see over the crest. It could be found that although he knew the road to be heavily travelled, he persisted in his attempt to pass, travelling on the left-hand side for a distance of several hundred feet, without utilizing the opportunity to drop behind before reaching the top of the hill. There his automobile collided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...they will act reasonably. McCarthy v. Souther, 83 N.H. 29, 31, 137 A. 445; Fine v. Parella, 92 N.H. 81, 83, 25 A.2d 121; Holt v. Grimard, 94 N.H. 255, 257, 51 A.2d 149. Of course if there are circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to anticipate and guard against careless conduc......
-
Couture v. Woodworth
...the plaintiff's car exercised some care which precludes a ruling that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Holt v. Grimard, 94 N.H. 255, 257, 51 A.2d 149; Hill v. Bardis Fruit Company, 96 N.H. 14, 69 A.2d 1. While the conflicting evidence as to the effectiveness of the plaint......
-
Vakalis v. Smart
...as a matter of law. The defendant's argument, based upon Fine v. Parella, supra, is answered by what was said in Holt v. Grimard, 94 N.H. 255, 257, 51 A.2d 149. Whether or not the plaintiff was careless under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence in this case was a question of fact. S......
-
Hill v. Bardis
...the plaintiff failed to use any care with reference to his position, or to give any attention or thought to his safety, Holt v. Grimard, 94 N.H. 255, 257, 51 A.2d 149, or that he knew that his conduct in that respect was ineffective. Rowe v. Boston & M. Railroad, 95 N.H. 371, 64 A.2d 6. The......