Kelly v. W. A. Healey Co., 7339.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1933
• Docket Number: No. 7339.,7339.
• Parties: KELLY v. W. A. HEALEY CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

167 A. 107

KELLY

v. W. A. HEALEY CO.

No. 7339.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 6, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence & Bristol Counties; Alexander L. Churchill, Judge.

Trespass on the case for negligence by Rose Kelly against the W. A. Healey Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions to denial of his motion for a new trial.

New trial denied conditionally.

Ambrose Kennedy and James T. Greene, both of Woonsocket, for plaintiff.

William S. Flynn and Edmund W. Flynn, both of Providence, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence. At the trial in the superior court the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $4,000. The case is here on the defendant's exception to the denial of its motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff, a single woman, who was probably about seventy years of age, was struck by an automobile owned by the defendant and operated by its servant. The accident occurred at the corner of Arnold and Bentley streets in the city of Woonsocket on a stormy evening when visibility was poor. At the time of the accident the plaintiff, who conducted a small variety store on Arnold street, was crossing said street to go to her store. Although she was lame, she was carrying a pail of water in one hand and a pail with coal in it in the other.

The plaintiff testified that, when she came to the corner of Bentley and Arnold streets, she placed both pails on the curbing before crossing, and looked up and down to make sure that no vehicle was coming in either direction; that nothing was approaching from either side over the long stretch of Arnold street; that she picked up her pails, stepped onto the solid road, looked again, and, seeing no vehicle, proceeded to cross; that, when she had reached the other side of the street, and was placing her right foot upon the curbing in front of her store, the defendant's automobile, without any signal or warning being given, ran into her and threw her headlong upon the sidewalk.

The driver of the automobile admitted that he saw the plaintiff crossing the street, and that he gave no warning or signal. He was driving close to the curbing on his right. It is his contention that the plaintiff succeeded in reaching the sidewalk and then stepped or fell backward into the street in front of the automobile.

The trial justice approved the verdict, and we think that as to the question of liability he was justified in so doing. We think, however,...