Milligan v. Weare
| Decision Date | 29 September 1942 |
| Citation | 28 A.2d 463 |
| Parties | MILLIGAN v. WEARE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On Motion from Superior Court, York County; George L. Emery, Presiding Justice.
Action by Herbert F. Milligan against Maurice Weare for injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck by automobile driven by defendant's employee. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff. From a denial of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, defendant excepts and also moves for a new trial.
Exception overruled, motion sustained, verdict set aside and new trial granted.
Before STURGIS, C. J., and THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, and MURCHIE, JJ.
Waterhouse, Spencer & Carroll, by Lincoln O. Spencer and Harold D. Carroll, all of Biddeford, for plaintiff.
William B. Mahoney, of Portland, and Willard & Willard, and Hiram Willard, all of Sanford, for defendant.
In this action on the case for negligence at the close of the evidence a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant was denied and an exception reserved. The jury to whom the case was then submitted having returned a verdict against him, the defendant filed a general motion for a new trial. As the exception and motion raise the same questions for review the exception must be regarded as waived.
In the late afternoon of August 8, 1941, but in the broad daylight of a clear day, the plaintiff, as he attempted to cross U. S. Highway No. 1 or Route 1, as it is called at Wells Corner, Maine, was struck and seriously injured by an automobile driven by the defendant's employee who was on his way to a nearby railroad station to bring back a visiting guest. Route 1, a concrete three lane main highway running practically North and South at Wells Corner, is intersected there by a road coming in from the West known as the "Sanford Road" and the travel through this intersection is constant and heavy. Crosswalks for pedestrians are plainly marked off by yellow lines on the surfaces of the ways and traffic is regulated by automatic electric signal lights of the usual type. The center lane of Route 1 for a distance of above three hundred feet southerly of the intersection is designated and marked by yellow lines as a "Left Turn Lane" for the use of vehicles turning left at the intersection into the San ford Road. Left turns, however, are subject to regular light signals.
The transcript of the evidence discloses that the plaintiff, accompanied by his fiancee, had driven to Wells Corner, parked his automobile on the westerly side of Route 1 just beyond and southerly of the intersection, crossed alone to a drug store on the opposite side and begun a return trip to his waiting companion and car. When he reached the highway the signal on it regulating traffic had flashed red and cars traveling in opposite directions in the outside lanes had come to a standstill and as one in the easterly lane had stopped on the crosswalk, instead of going around in front of that and crossing in the place set apart for pedestrians he moved back, walked in between two cars and out into the middle lane and was immediately hit and knocked down by the defendant's car which was coming up that lane for a left turn into the Sanford Road.
The controlling question in this case is whether the plaintiff was exercising due care...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanborn v. Stone
...to find negligence for applying brakes on a slippery highway under the circumstances. Two Justices dissent. In Milligan v. Weare, 139, Me. 199, 28 A.2d 463, 464, a pedestrian crossing street 'cannot walk into a danger'. The case of Rossier v. Merrill, 139 Me. 174, 28 A.2d 142, cited by defe......
-
Greene v. Willey
...Wiles et al v. Connor Coal & Wood Co., 143 Me. 250, 260, 60 A.2d 786; Levesque v. Dumont et al., 116 Me. 25, 99 A. 719; Milligan v. Weare, 139 Me. 199, 28 A.2d 463. Where a boy eight years old saw an automobile approaching and attempted to run across the street in front of it. He either ran......
-
Glazier v. Tetrault
...not apply. The duty is to use due care, and nothing more, but that duty requires that one see what should be seen. In Milligan v. Weare, 139 Me. 199, 28 A.2d 463, 464, this Court set aside a jury verdict rendered, undoubtedly, on the jury's acceptance of the plaintiff's testimony that he lo......
-
Ross v. Russell .
...of the pedestrian may not have been the sole proximate cause of the accident. Levesque v. Dumont, 116 Me. 25, 99 A. 719; Milligan v. Weare, 139 Me. 199, 28 A.2d 463. There is one other consideration. Whether or not a pedestrian in crossing a street may be guilty of negligence depends in par......