Newman v. Hill

• Citation: 146 N.E. 46,250 Mass. 578
• Parties: NEWMAN v. HILL.
• Decision Date: 21 January 1925
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

250 Mass. 578

146 N.E. 46

NEWMAN

v.HILL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Jan. 21, 1925.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Brookline; D. A. Rollins, Special Judge.

Action of tort by Margaret Newman against Edward H. Hill to recover compensation for personal injuries from automobile collision. Judgment of municipal court for plaintiff was reversed by the appellate division, and plaintiff appeals. Judgment of appellate division reversed, and judgment for plaintiff entered.

T. W. Proctor and M. T. Prendergast, both of Boston, for appellant.

F. L. Reynolds, of Medford Hillside, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

[1] This is an action of tort by the plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public way, to recover compensation for personal injuries caused by being struck by an automobile. It is not argued that the operator of the automobile could not have been found to be the servant of the defendant, acting within the scope of his employment. The only point argued by the defendant is that the plaintiff was, on the aspect of the evidence most favorable to her, as matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence and hence cannot recover. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff at about seven o'clock in the evening of a November day started to cross Boylston street, in Brookline, in which are two sets of car tracks, at a point fifty to seventy-five feet east of Cypress street. Before stepping off the sidewalk she looked up and down the street and saw an automobile on Boylston street in the direction of Cypress street coming toward her which looked to be farther way from her than the tracks in Cypress street. When the plaintiff reached the first set of car rails, she looked to her right and saw an automobile in the vicinity of Cypress street at such a distance from her that ‘she had time to pass.’ She did not know whether the automobile was standing or moving, but she saw its headlights lighted. The automobile was on its right-hand side of Boylston street and was about fifty-five or sixty feet away. It was raining and the plaintiff had an umbrella over her head, held high so that it did not obstruct her view. She last saw the automobile when she was on the outbound rails on Boylston street, that is, on the first car track she had to pass on crossing the street and she did not see, hear or know anything more about it until she was struck. She was about three or four feet from the southerly sidewalk of Boylston street toward which she was...