Nadeau v. Perkins

• Decision Date: 21 August 1937
• Citation: 193 A. 877
• Parties: NADEAU v. PERKINS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

193 A. 877

NADEAU

v. PERKINS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 21, 1937.

On motion from Superior Court, Penobscot County, in Equity.

Action by Maud Ham Nadeau against Paul Perkins, wherein there was a verdict for plaintiff. On motion for a new trial.

Motion overruled.

Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.

Artemus Weatherbee and E. A. Weatherbee, Jr., both of Lincoln, for plaintiff. Alton C. Wheeler, of Auburn, and Arthur Thayer, of Bangor, for defendant.

MANSER, Justice.

On February 17, 1935, a truck with van body, painted dark green, was left in the nighttime, without lights, and unattended, on State Highway No. 2, in the town of Winn, outside of the business or residential district. An automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a guest passenger came into collision with the rear left corner of the truck, and as a consequence the plaintiff received severe personal injuries. After verdict for the plaintiff for $6,108.40, the case comes forward on motion for new trial. The issues presented are:

Was the jury justified in finding that the defendant was negligent, that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence; and, if so, were the damages awarded excessive?

Upon the question of negligence, the plaintiff contends that the defendant violated certain provisions of the traffic statutes found in Rev.St. ch. 29, §§ 75 and 83, these laws having to do with the parking or leaving of standing vehicles on the travelled way, when practicable not to do so, and in no event unless a clear view of the vehicle may be obtained for a distance of three hundred feet in each direction on the way; and also providing that every vehicle shall have lights so displayed at night as to be visible from the front and rear.

The Legislature, through the enactment of statutes, prescribes rules designed to safeguard travellers, and provides penalties for violation of such rules. If such violation is admitted, or proven by the evidence, it is prima facie evidence of negligence, as it is sometimes said, and as otherwise expressed, raises a presumption of negligence. While not conclusive, the defendant must overcome the presumption against him. Bolduc v. Garcelon, 127 Me. 482, 144 A. 395; Rouse v. Scott, 132 Me. 22, 164 A. 872; Dansky v. Kotimaki, 125 Me. 72, 130 A. 871; Tibbetts v. Dunton, 133 Me. 128, 131, 174 A. 453.

That the truck was left unattended and without lights is not disputed, but the defendant asserts in argument that it was impracticable to do otherwise, and that on the night in question the truck was clearly visible. He, therefore, claims there was no actual violation of either statute, and that he was not guilty of actionable negligence.

The record would justify a finding by the jury that the defendant was engaged in trucking potatoes from Aroostook County to the coast. He traveled at times by night, and on the particular occasion he was unaccompanied and unprovided with lantern, flashlight, or other means of producing artificial light. He had been bothered with the operation of the truck, and finally discovered it had a dead battery. He walked to a garage about a mile away for assistance, leaving the truck on the right hand side of the highway. He was unable, on account of the condition of the battery, to display the lights on the truck.

The record is silent as to whether for the half hour that he was trying to ascertain and remedy the cause of the trouble any travelers had passed, whose assistance in procuring aid he might have requested. Neither does it show whether he could have stopped the truck in some other place off the highway.

The visibility of the truck was in issue. There was evidence that it was a moonlight night, and the garageman, who went to the scene some time after the accident, was able to see the truck for a considerable distance. On the other hand, it is in testimony that it had been raining during the daytime and had then grown much colder during the night. As a result, a low lying fog was more or less prevalent, which somewhat obscured vision. Another car arriving at the scene from the same direction as the plaintiff's car had proceeded, also came into collision with the truck, and a third car narrowly avoided accident by running into a snow bank. This evidence, received without...