King v. Wolf Grocery Co.

Decision Date19 April 1927
Citation137 A. 62
PartiesKING v. WOLF GROCERY CO. (two cases).
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Cumberland County, at Law.

Separate actions by Trott Ralph King and by Annie A. King against the Wolf Grocery Company, tried together. A motion for nonsuit was granted, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, DEASY, STURGIS, and BASSETT, JJ.

William H. Gulliver, John B. Thomes, and William B. Mahoney, all of Portland, for plaintiffs.

Oakes & Skillin, of Portland, for defendant.

WILSON, C. J. Actions to recover for loss of services by the husband and for injuries by the wife. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the actions being tried together, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which the court granted. The case is here on plaintiff's exceptions.

The issue here is whether, taking the evidence most favorably for the plaintiffs, verdicts in their favor could be permitted to stand. Whittemore v. Merrill, 87 Me. 456, 32 A. 1008; Marden v. Street Railway, 100 Me. 41, 52, 60 A. 530, 69 L. R. A. 300, 109 Am. St. Rep. 476.

On the 12th day of December, the plaintiff Annie A. King was crossing Middle street in the city of Portland on a crosswalk or within the space marked off for pedestrians at the junction of Middle, Free, and Cross streets. At this point there are two parallel tracks of the street railroad and a spur track turning off to the right into Cross street which increases the number of rails on the side of the street on which the truck was running. As she stepped from the sidewalk onto the street, she saw the defendant's truck approaching from Monument Square and on the opposite side of the street. Thinking she had a sufficient time to cross before the truck reached the crosswalk, she continued on her way. As the truck neared the crosswalk on Middle street, it slowed up or stopped to permit other pedestrians to cross who were ahead of Mrs. King, and then started up. Mrs. King stopped some four or five feet from the course the truck was then taking to let it pass. The truck was running with the two wheels, on the side next to Mrs. King, between the street car rails, and as it passed her, it turned sharply to the right to go into Cross street. The rear tires on the truck were worn smooth, and there were no skid chains on. The streets were icy and slippery. As the rear wheels of the truck passed over the southerly rails of the car tracks, it began to skid or slue. The tailboard of the truck was down, and extended out beyond the rear of the body of the truck about two feet. In turning to go into Cross street, it swung the rear end of the truck toward Mrs. King, and as the rear wheels skidded, the tailboard hit her a blow in the side, knocking her down and causing the injuries of which she complains.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Miller v. Utah Light & Traction Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1939
    ... ... sidewalk." ... [96 ... Utah 391] In King v. Wolf Grocery Co. , 126 ... Me. 202, 137 A. 62, the court held the question of whether ... ...
  • Ernest Williamson v. R. Lynn Clark
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1931
    ... ... apply. Barret v. Caddo, 165 La. 1075, 116 ... So. 563, 58 A.L.R. 261; King v. Wolf Grocery ... Co., 126 Me. 202, 137 A. 62; Reardon v ... Boston El. Ry. Co., 247 Mass ... ...
  • Williamson v. Clark
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1931
    ...And so the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. Barret v. Caddo, 165 La. 1075, 116 So. 563, 58 A. L. R. 261; King v. Wolf Grocery Co., 126 Me. 202, 137 A. 62; Reardon v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 247 Mass. 124, 141 N. E. 857. See Houston v. Brush, 66 Vt. 331, 342, 29 A. 380. It cannot be......
  • Chaisson v. Williams
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 2 Septiembre 1931
    ...L. R. 665. Therefore, that injury results from the skidding of an automobile is not, of itself, evidence of negligence. King v. Wolf Grocery Co., 126 Me. 202, 137 A. 62. But though mere accident is not proof of negligence, some accompanying elemental facts may, under ruling by the court, af......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT