Langill v. First Nat. Stores

• Decision Date: 01 December 1937
• Citation: 298 Mass. 559,11 N.E.2d 593
• Parties: LOUIS H. LANGILL v. FIRST NATIONAL STORES INC.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

298 Mass. 559

11 N.E.2d 593

LOUIS H. LANGILL v. FIRST NATIONAL STORES INC.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

December 1, 1937

November 3, 1937.

Present: FIELDLUMMUS, QUA, & DOLAN, JJ.

Negligence Contributory, Motor vehicle, In use of way.

Evidence that an automobile, proceeding in a thick fog at a speed moderate but such that the automobile could not be stopped within the distance the driver could see unlighted objects ahead collided with the rear of a large motor truck with no tail light showing, parked diagonally across the greater part of the way, did not require a ruling that the driver was guilty of contributory negligence.

TORT.Writ in the Superior Court dated August 24, 1934.The action was tried before Dowd, J.There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $715.The defendant alleged exceptions.

J. J. Mulcahy, for the defendant.

M. Michelson, (B.

I. Goldberg with him,) for the plaintiff.

DOLAN, J.This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision of his automobile with a motor truck owned by the defendant and at the time of the accident in the control of its servants and agents.The case was tried to a jury and at the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict.The motion was denied and the defendant excepted.The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

The only question raised by the defendant's bill of exceptions is whether the trial judge erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict.The defendant does not contend that the jury could not have found properly that it was negligent.

The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff tended to show the following facts: The plaintiff, a milk route salesman, while on his way to work on August 13, 1934, was driving his automobile about 3:40 A.M. on Pleasant Street, Malden Massachusetts.It was raining and foggy.He was driving at a speed of about fourteen to sixteen miles an hour.The headlights of his vehicle, which were in good order, were lighted, and his windshield wiper was working.He could see about fifteen feet ahead of him.Under normal conditions the headlights would shine at least one hundred feet ahead.The street lights in the vicinity of the accident were located about one hundred feet apart.At the rate of speed at which the plaintiff was driving and under the weather conditions before noted, he could stop his vehicle in a distance of from twenty to thirty feet.While thus proceeding he ran into the rear end of the defendant's truck, which he did not see until it was about fifteen feet ahead of him.The truck was attached by a tow rope to another truck of the defendant.The trucks were not in motion, and stood diagonally across the street so that the left front corner of the forward truck was about six feet from the left hand curbstone, and the right rear of the truck with which the plaintiff's automobile collided was about fifteen feet from the right hand curbstone.The latter truck was a large covered red vehicle, but at the time of the accident the rear doors were open and a canvas hung from the roof but not below the tailboard, which was down in such a position that, although the tail light was on, it was concealed and hence no light was displayed so as to be visible from the rear as required by statute.G.L. (Ter. Ed.)c. 85, Section 15;c. 90, Section 7;St. 1933, c. 51.SeeJacobs v. Moniz,288 Mass. 102 , and cases cited.The radiator of the plaintiff's vehicle, just above the headlights, struck the tailboard of the truck, went farther on and rebounded so that after the collision it was about a foot away from the truck.

The defendant has argued that the evidence required a finding that the plaintiff did not see the truck until he ran into it.Although the...