McCarthy v. Beckwith

• Decision Date: 10 October 1923
• Citation: 141 N.E. 126,246 Mass. 409
• Parties: McCARTHY v. BECKWITH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

246 Mass. 409

141 N.E. 126

McCARTHY

v.BECKWITH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Oct. 10, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Christopher T. Callahan, Judge.

Action of tort by Thomas F. McCarthy against Leon A. Beckwith for damage to plaintiff's automobile. Verdict for plaintiff for $300, and defendant brings exception. Exception sustained.

Defendant excepted to the refusal of instructions and rulings that defendant had the right of way, and that plaintiff's failure to grant it amounted to contributory negligence, and was evidence of contributory negligence.

Municipal corporations k705(2)-Statute as to right of way held applicable, where vehicle turning into intersecting street; ‘intersecting way.’

G. L. c. 89, s 8, provding that driver of vehicle approaching ‘intersecting way’ (defined in chapter 90, s 1, as any way joining another, whether crossing it or not) shall grant right of way to vehicles approaching from his right of arriving at point of intersection at approximately the same instant, was applicable where automobiles were approaching intersecting street from opposite directions, and one turned to the left into such street, though the intersecting street did not cross the other street.

[Ed. Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Second Series, Intersecting Way.]

Graves & Moran, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

Horace E. Allen and Allen, Yerrall & Bellows, all of Springfield, for defendant.

PIERCE, J.

This is an action of tort for damages to the plaintiff's automobile, sustained in a collision with the defendant's automobile, at the intersection of Berendo street and Grenada Terrace, both being public streets in the city of Springfield. Grenada Terrace runs east and west. Berendo street runs north and south to Grenada Terrace, but does not enter it. Immediately before the collision, the plaintiff was driving east on the southerly side of the terrace, while the defendant was driving west on the northerly side of the terrace. As the cars approached the intersection of the street and terrace the plaintiff turned his car to the left and north to go into Berendo street. Meanwhile, at approximately the same instant, the defendant approached the intersection of the streets on the right of the plaintiff.

There was evidence from which the jury could find that the collision and the damage which resulted therefrom to the plaintiff's automobile were attributable to the negligence of the defendant. At the close of the evidence the defendant requested, and the court refused to give, subject to the defendant's duly saved exceptions, the following instructions:

‘(1) If the plaintiff's car and the defendant's approached the intersection of Berendo street and Grenada Terrace at approximately the same instant, the defendant was entitled to the right of way, and the plaintiff's failure to grant it to him amounted to contributory negligence and bars recovery by the plaintiff.

‘(2) If the plaintiff's car and the defendant's approached the intersection...