Jacorson v. O'Dette
| Decision Date | 28 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 5317.,5317. |
| Citation | 108 A. 653 |
| Parties | JACORSON v. O'DETTE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; J. Jerome Halm, Judge.
Action by Max Jacobson against Arthur O'Dette resulting in nonsuit, and plaintiff excepts. Exception overruled, and case remitted with direction to enter judgment on the nonsuit.
Samuel I. Jacobs, of Boston, Mass., and Walter W. Osterman, of Providence, for plaint iff.
E. Raymond Walsh, of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence to recover compensation for damage to plaintiff's automobile caused by collision with defendant's automobile. The plaintiff at the close of his testimony was nonsuited on the ground that his driver was guilty of contributory negligence. The ease is before this court on exception to the nonsuit.
The collision occurred shortly after midnight in the business section of the city of Providence at the intersection of Empire and Westminster streets. Westminster street runs easterly and westerly, and Empire street northerly and southerly. The two streets cross at approximately right angles. The plaintiff's automobile was proceeding along Empire street in a southerly direction and was crossing Westminster street when it wits struck at the right-hand rear wheel by defendant's automobile which was proceeding in an easterly course on Westminster street. The driver of the plaintiff's automobile blew his horn as he approached the intersection of the two streets but did not look to the right or to the left. He testified that the street was clear, and that he was looking "straight ahead towards Rroad street" and did not see defendant's automobile until after he heard the crash. Had the driver looked before attempting to cross Westminster street, he would have had a clear view of Westminster street in either direction for a considerable distance. Westminster street is the principal business street of the city, and said intersection is much frequented by pedestrians, electric cars, automobiles, and other vehicles.
No question of the last clear chance is involved. The' plaintiff's contention is that the question of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. The question of contributory negligence is one for the jury, unless it clearly appears that the only proper inference from the undisputed facts is that in the circumstances of the case a person of ordinary prudence would not have acted as did the plaintiff. As this court said in Clarke v. R. I. Elec. Lgntg. Co., 10 R. I. 465, 17 Atl. 60:
"Generally, the question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ries v. Cheyenne Cab & Transfer Company
- Sine v. Salt Lake Transp. Co.
- Ramp v. Osborne
- Hillstrom v. Brothers