Pease v. Lenssen
| Decision Date | 04 April 1934 |
| Citation | 190 N.E. 18,286 Mass. 207 |
| Parties | PEASE v. LENSSEN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Dukes County; Hanify, Judge.
Action of tort by Eliza R. Pease against Arthur Lenssen, 3d. Verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $6,000, and the defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
F. Vera and W. S. Downey, both of New Bedford, for plaintiff.
F. E. Smith and A. V. Sullivan, both of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff seeks in this action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while walking on a public way by being struck by an automobile negligently operated by the defendant. The accident occurred about ten o'clock in the evening of a June day near the intersection of streets in the village of Edgartown. The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff tended to show that, walking on her right of the concrete surface of the highway, she had turned to her left to pass a parked automobile and was turning again to her right when she ‘heard a rushing sound and talking and laughter,’ and sensed that there was an automobile coming toward her from behind and she was struck. She had always lived in the town and was familiar with this intersection of streets. There were no sidewalks in the vicinity. The defendant and two others were sitting on the front seat of the automobile. There was an electric light at the corner of the streets. The defendant had made a wide turn from one street into the other at a speed of about twenty miles per hour; his view around the corner was obstructed by darkness. He had straightened his automobile out so that it was parallel with the road, saw the plaintiff walking, tried to avoid hitting her and gave no signal of his approach. After the accident the plaintiff was near the right wheel to the rear of the center of his automobile.
It is not necessary to narrate the evidence in further detail. Whether the plaintiff by her contributory negligence was barred from recovery could not rightly have been ruled as matter of law. It was a question of fact, the burden of proof resting upon the defendant. O'Connell v. McKeown, 270 Mass. 432, 435, 170 N. E. 402.
Whether the plaintiff was injured through the negligence of the defendant was also a question of fact. The principles of law governing this class of cases are thoroughly settled and need not be repeated. ‘The rights and duties of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Ludwig
... ... contributory negligence on the part of the intestate, and ... that she subsequently died. Pease v. Lenssen, 286 ... Mass. 207, 190 N.E. 18 ... The ... questions argued by the defendant relate chiefly to the death ... ...
-
Noyes v. Whiting
... ... 369, 183 N.E. 767; Clark v. C. E ... Fay Co., 281 Mass. 240, 183 N.E. 423; Legg v ... Bloom, 282 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 832; [194 N.E. 94] Pease ... v. Lenssen, 286 Mass. 207, 190 N.E. 18; Callahan v ... Boston Elevated Railway Co., 286 Mass. 223, 190 N.E. 27; ... Sooserian v. Town Taxi, ... ...
-
Nicholson v. Babb
...See Shapiro v. Union Street Railway Co., 247 Mass. 100, 104, 141 N.E. 505;Seymour v. Dunville, 265 Mass. 78, 164 N.E. 79;Pease v. Lenssen, 286 Mass. 207, 190 N.E. 18;Hall v. Shain, 291 Mass. 506, 509, 197 N.E. 437. Compare Carpenter v. Anderson, Mass., 17 N.E.2d 898. It could not have been ......
-
Byrne v. Dunn
... ... Oliver Whyte Co., Inc., 231 Mass. 519, 521, 121 N.E ... 401; Hutchinson v. H. E. Shaw Co., 273 Mass. 51, 52, ... 172 N.E. 788; Pease v. Lenssen, 286 Mass. 207, 208, ... 190 N.E. 18; Crowley v. Freeman (Mass.) 195 N.E ... 926. She could also rely to some extent upon the fact that ... ...