Perry v. La Plante
| Decision Date | 08 February 1962 |
| Citation | 179 N.E.2d 913,343 Mass. 570 |
| Parties | Susan PERRY v. Orient LA PLANTE. Ronald PERRY v. Orient LA PLANTE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frank P. Hurley, Winchester, for defendant.
James A. Heaney, Fall River, for plaintiffs, submitted a brief.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, CUTTER, and KIRK, JJ.
These are actions of tort by two minor plaintiffs to recover for personal injuries received in a collision with an automobile operated by the defendant. At the time of the accident on January 21, 1959, the plaintiff Ronald was nine years old and his sister, the plaintiff Susan, was seven years old. The two children were on their way to school and were walking west on the northerly sidewalk of Osborn Street in Fall River. They came to Broadway, a fifty foot street running north and south which intersects Osborn Street at right angles. There was evidence that they stopped at the curb of Broadway, looked to the north and south and, seeing automobiles proceeding in both directions, they waited. They started to cross Broadway and when about fifteen feet from the curb ran into or were struck by the right side of the defendant's automobile. The defendant had been operating his automobile westerly on Osborn Street and, when he reached the intersection, stopped and then turned north into Broadway at a slow rate of speed. He testified that he saw the children standing on the curb and stopped before turning into Broadway. As he turned, his attention was distracted by the blowing of a horn and he took his eyes off the children. On turning his head back towards them, he saw them two feet away 'coming right at his car.' They were four or five feet from the easterly curb of Broadway and ran into the right side of his car.
An auditor to whom the cases were referred and whose findings of fact were not final found that the children stepped out from the sidewalk without looking to their left and that their injuries were the result of their contributory negligence. The judge denied motions of the defendant for directed verdicts and the jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. The cases are here on the defendant's exceptions to the denial of his motions and to an order of the judge to the defendant's counsel in the course of argument that he refrain from commenting on compulsory insurance rates and the effect of automobile accidents thereon. Counsel had stated to the jury that under the Massachusetts compulsory automobile insurance law it was necessary for a person seeking recovery for an injury sustained by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tessier v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company
...court considers that it is. See Dempsey v. Goldstein Bros. Amusement Co., 1919, 231 Mass. 461, 121 N.E. 429; cf. Perry v. LaPlante, 1962, 343 Mass. 570, 179 N.E.2d 913. There is still a further reality to which plaintiff would give short shrift. Under Massachusetts procedure the injured par......
-
Spano v. Wilson Tisdale Co.
...118 N.E.2d 875. Mason v. Steinmetz, 332 Mass. 575, 126 N.E.2d 368. Marchant v. Connelly, 335 Mass. 397, 140 N.E.2d 173. Perry v. LaPlante, 343 Mass. 570, 179 N.E.2d 913. We conclude that the case before us more nearly resembles a line of decisions involving pedestrians, wherein we ruled tha......
-
Usry v. Bostick, 41348
...in argument to the jury constitutes prejudicial error. Perrota v. Mooney Bros. Supply Co., 21 Law.L.J. 135 (Pa.); Perry v. LaPlante, 343 Mass. 570 (179 N.E.2d 913). By the same token it is, as a general rule, error for counsel for the defendant to urge in his argument that the defendant is ......