Lovett v. Scott

Decision Date02 April 1919
Citation122 N.E. 646,232 Mass. 541
PartiesLOVETT v. SCOTT.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Franklin G. Fessenden, Judge.

Action by William J. Lovett, administrator, against Edward H. Scott. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS k705(3)-AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT-NEGLIGENCE.

Where, as driver of defendant's motor truck, going at average speed, turned to left to pass wagon standing next curbing, plaintiff's intestate, a boy of eight, left sidewalk near head of horse and walked or ran five or six steps into street before he was hit by right side of defendant's truck, or its front fender, defendant's driver was not negligent.

Sewall C. Brackett, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Curtin, Poole & Allen, of Boston, for defendant.

PIERCE, J.

Stating the testimony in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff's contention, the evidence warranted the jury in finding that the accident and injury to the plaintiff's intestate occurred on February 23, 1917, at about 4:10 p.m. at a place three feet from the edge of the sidewalk on the right side of Columbia Road in Dorchester, leading from Upham's Corner to Franklin Park, in front of a small grocery store; that at the time of the accident a servant of the defendant, in the prosecution of the business of the defendant, was driving a two-ton motor truck with a load of furniture upon it, in the direction of Franklin Park; that the truck had crossed Devon Street, distant from the place of the accident ‘about twice the length of the court room,’ and then proceeded over that distance until it came to the rear of a ‘cracker wagon’ which was standing next to the curbing in front of the small grocery store, with the horse headed in the direction of Franklin Park; that the truck was turned to the left to pass the ‘cracker wagon’ to about the center of the street, that the driver went by the ‘cracker wagon’ ‘as close as he could’ and then, ‘going at a moderate speed’ without blowing the horn in front of the horse, turned toward the sidewalk on the right side; that at this moment the plaintiff's intestate, eight years and four months old and ‘a very bright boy indeed,’ left the sidewalk near the horse's head and walked or ran into the street five or six steps before he was hit by the ‘right side’ of the front fender or by the ‘right-hand side of the automobile.’ In these circumstances no one could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Kalsow v. Grob
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 2, 1931
    ...... A.L.R. 192, relating to children darting in front of a motor. . .          In the. case of Lovett v. Scott, 232 Mass. 541, 122 N.E. 646, the boy injured was eight years and four months of age. There was a directed verdict. [237 N.W. 852] . ......
  • Morgan v. Bingham Stage Lines Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • August 13, 1929
    ...... 557, 186 N.W. 593; Apps. v. Walters , 216. Mich. 17, 184 N.W. 421; Halzle v. Hargreaves , 233 Mich. 234, 206 N.W. 356;. Lovett v. Scott , 232 Mass. 541, 122 N.E. 646; Hooper v. Adams Express Co. , 289 Ill. 169, 124 N.E. 445; Mayer v. Anderson et. al. , 36 Cal.App. ......
  • Cooper & Co. v. Am. Can Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • February 27, 1931
    ...or prevent a collision with him. * * * The direction of the verdict for the defendant was clearly right." Lovett, Adm'r, v. Scott, 232 Mass. 541, 122 N. E. 646. Where plaintiff, after alighting from a street car went to the rear of the car, started to cross the adjoining track and was struc......
  • Mathers v. Botsford
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 14, 1923
    ...790; Stahl v. Sollenberger, supra; Sorsby v. Benninghoven, 82 Or. 345, 161 P. 251; Lemieux v. Heath, 116 Me. 55, 100 A. 1; Lovett v. Scott, 232 Mass. 541, 122 N.E. 646; Winter v. Van Blarcom, supra; Huddy on Automobiles (6th 419. More care is required of pedestrians, walking in streets betw......
  • 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