Moran v. Smith

• Decision Date: 13 September 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 272
• Parties: MORAN v. SMITH (two cases).
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

95 A. 272

MORAN

v. SMITH (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Sept. 13, 1915.

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County, at Law.

Separate actions by Kenneth P. Moran, by next friend, and by Maurice S. Moran, against George W. Smith, to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff in each action, and defendant moves for new trials. Motion sustained.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and SPEAR, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.

M. A. Johnson, of Rockland, for plaintiffs. A. S. Littlefield, of Rockland, for defendant.

SAVAGE, C. J. The plaintiff in the first action, a boy eight years old, seeks to recover damages for injuries occasioned by being run against and thrown down by an automobile negligently driven by the defendant. The other action is brought by the boy's father to recover for alleged loss of service and expenses of nursing. In each case the plaintiff recovered a verdict, and the cases are before us on defendant's motions for new trials.

The collision occurred on Limerock street, in Rockland, between Broad and Lincoln streets. These streets intersect Limerock street at right angles, and are 70 feet apart. Limerock street is about 50 feet wide between street lines, and 36 feet between gutters. The boy plaintiff, with two other boys, was riding in a hayrack going westerly on Limerock street. The hayrack was on the right-hand side of the street. One of the boys got off somewhere between Lincoln and Broad streets, and ran across the street to the opposite sidewalk. The plaintiff followed from the rack, and started to run across the street. Meanwhile the defendant drove his car along Broad street, and turned easterly into Lincoln street, facing the boys. The boy on the sidewalk saw the car and shouted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff saw the car, stopped, and then started to run again, and endeavored to cross the street in front of the car. He claims that in doing so he got nearly by, and was struck by the right-hand mud guard and thrown down. The defendant claims that the boy ran against the left-hand mud guard, and it is certain that the great weight of disinterested testimony sustains this claim.

It is claimed that the defendant was negligent, in that he did not blow his horn before he turned the corner, that he was driving too fast, considering the circumstances, and that he did not stop as quickly as he might when he saw the boy attempting to cross. In passing, we will say, as to the first point, that it is immaterial in this case whether the horn was blown or not because the plaintiff saw the car in season to stop. In fact, he did stop. As to the other features of alleged negligence, it is unnecessary to discuss them, for we think the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Whe...