Monroe v. Vassalotti

• Decision Date: 29 April 1960
• Citation: 340 Mass. 764,166 N.E.2d 696
• Parties: George C. MONROE et al. v. Nicholas L. VASSALOTTI.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 696

166 N.E.2d 696

340 Mass. 764

George C. MONROE et al. v. Nicholas L. VASSALOTTI.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Argued March 9, 1960.

Decided April 29, 1960.

Thomas H. Mahony, Boston, for plaintiffs.

Melville F. Weston, Boston, for defendant.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

This action of tort arose from a collision of automobiles at the intersection of Centre and Clark streets in Newton on the evening of December 14, 1956. One Elizabeth Monroe was operating a sedan owned by the plaintiff George C. Monroe northerly on Centre Street at about 9 P.M. The plaintiffs Nellie G. Monroe and Eleanor Monroe were seated at her right. It was a snowy, rainy night, the street was covered with snow, and it was slippery. The defendant was plowing the streets for the city of Newton and was driving a truck with a snow plow attachment southerly on the same street. The truck was 26 feet long overall and was loaded with two or three tons of sand. Two headlights and two dome lights over the cab were lighted but there was no green light attached to the left front of the vehicle in accordance with the requirement of G.L. c. 90, § 7. ¹ Centre Street had three traffic lanes and was about 40 feet wide. There was evidence that the defendant was driving in the middle lane and when about 50 feet north of Clark Street put on his left directional light and turned left at a slight angle to enter Clark Street. He was plowing snow and proceeding at from five to ten miles per hour at which rate of speed he could stop in from five to ten feet. He had gone about 60 feet and the plow had entered Clark Street when his truck was struck on the right side near the rear wheels by the Monroe sedan.

The defendant testified that when he started to turn he saw the lights of the automobile, which proved to be the Monroe car, some 300 feet to the south; he watched it approach and last saw it before the collision when it was 50 feet away, his view thereafter being obscured by the right side of his cab. Miss Monroe testified that as she approached Clark Street she saw the lights of one 'or possibly two cars approaching way up ahead.' She was driving at a rate of 30 to 35 miles per hour when suddenly she saw 'a truck's back wheels were in front of her'--about 7 feet ahead. She then attempted to turn left and skidded into the truck.

An auditor, to whom the case was referred, found for the defendant on each count but in a subsequent trial to a jury there were verdicts for the plaintiffs. The defendant has excepted to the denial of his motions for directed verdicts and to the refusal to give the following instruction: 'The jury are instructed that the requirement of c. 90, § 7, with respect to a green light was not intended to prevent the type of collision here involved.'

No issue was raised as to the contributory negligence of any one of the plaintiffs and the sole question was that of the defendant's negligence. That question was properly submitted to the jury. It was for them to determine whether in turning to his left and proceeding across the path of the approaching automobile, he was negligent and whether his negligence contributed to cause the collision. There was no error in refusing to give the requested instruction. A violation of § 7 is penalized by G.L. c. 90, § 20, and is evidence of negligence as to all consequences that the statute was intended to prevent. Baggs v. Hirschfield, 293 Mass. 1, 4, 199 N.E. 136. Kralik v. LeClair, 315 Mass. 323, 326, 52 N.E.2d 562.

In order, however, that legal liability follow, such negligence...