Jennings v. Bragdon

• Citation: 289 Mass. 595,194 N.E. 697
• Parties: JENNINGS v. BRAGDON (two cases.)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1935
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

289 Mass. 595

194 N.E. 697

JENNINGS v. BRAGDON (two cases.)

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 28, 1935

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Bishop Judge.

Two actions of tort by Thomas F. Jennings and by Fred Jennings respectively, against Lester Bragdon. Verdicts for plaintiffs in the sums of $3,000 and $200, respectively, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

J. M. Russell, of Boston, for plaintiffs.

M. Z. Kolodny and M. T. Prendergast, both of Boston, for defendant.

QUA Justice.

These are actions of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs at about four thirty in the afternoon of an April day while riding together in an automobile owned by Thomas F. Jennings and driven by Fred Jennings at the intersection of Main Street and Willow Street in Waltham. The cases were tried together, and there was a verdict for the plaintiff in each case. The defendant now argues only those of his exceptions which relate to the denial of his motions for a directed verdict in his favor in each action and to the judge's exclusion of his offer in evidence of declarations filed by each plaintiff in another action brought by him against one Tucci (hereinafter mentioned) to recover for the same injuries for which the present actions are brought.

Main Street runs east and west. Willow Street runs in a southerly direction from Main Street. The plaintiffs' evidence taken in its aspect most favorable to them tended to show the following facts: The Jennings' automobile was proceeding easterly on Main Street approaching Willow Street. The defendant was also driving his automobile on Main Street in the same direction behind the Jennings' automobile. It was raining. A large truck, heavily loaded, was being driven by Tucci on Main Street approaching Willow Street from the opposite direction. The Jennings' automobile and the truck were each proceeding at a speed of about twenty to twenty-five miles per hour and were each about the same distance from Willow Street. Suddenly the truck, without giving any signal or slowing down, turned to its left toward Willow Street and ‘ shot’ in front of the Jennings' automobile. Fred Jennings ‘ swung’ to his left, applied his brake ‘ as quickly as he could’ and brought the Jennings' automobile practically to a stop, when it came into collision lightly with the right rear wheel of the truck, which stopped at the same time. No one was hurt and the Jennings' automobile was not damaged. One of the plaintiffs put his hand on the handle of the door and started to get out. Then the defendant's automobile struck the rear of the Jennings' automobile a severe blow, drove it into the truck again, forced the head of one of the plaintiffs through the windshield, injured both plaintiffs and badly damaged the Jennings' automobile. There was a space of a few seconds between the collisions. The Jennings' automobile was equipped with a stop-light at the rear in working order. Main Street was straight and was forty-seven feet wide between curb lines. It is true that there was evidence, some of it coming from the plaintiffs themselves, which could lead to findings far more favorable to the defendant than as stated above, particularly as to the time which elapsed between the two...