Peter Sormani v. John Christianson

• Decision Date: 02 February 1927
• Citation: Peter Sormani v. John Christianson, 135 A. 769, 100 Vt. 185 (Vt. 1927)
• Parties: PETER SORMANI v. JOHN CHRISTIANSON
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

135 A. 769

100 Vt. 185

PETER SORMANI v. JOHN CHRISTIANSON

Supreme Court of Vermont

February 2, 1927

January Term, 1927.

ACTION OF TORT for negligence arising out of automobile collision.Plea, general issue.Trial by jury at the March Term, 1925Washington County, Fish, J., presiding.Verdict and judgment for the defendant.The plaintiff excepted.The opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Edward C. Dufficy for the plaintiff.

Melvin G. Morse for the defendant.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, and MOULTON, JJ.

OPINION

WATSON

The record states that the evidence tended to show that on September 28, 1923, the automobiles of the plaintiff and the defendant collided on North Main Street, near the intersection of Brook Street and North Main Street, in the city of Barre; that the defendant was traveling at a speed of twenty miles or more per hour near the center of the highway coming from the direction of Montpelier toward Barre; that the plaintiff was traveling from Brook Street, an intersecting highway to the left of the defendant, along North Main Street, toward Montpelier.

The undisputed evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff's car struck defendant's car on the left-hand side; and that immediately after the accident the left-hand side of the frame of the latter car was badly dented and jammed.

Defendant offered in evidence the frame of his car, which was taken out after the collision, for the purpose of showing the marks on it.Plaintiff objected to its admission on the ground that the marks might have been made when it was so taken out.Defendant testified that in repairing his car the frame was taken out and a new one put in; that the frame was bent and twisted; that the injury to it was in the left front side; that there were marks on it and it was twisted on the left front, about 3 1/2 feet from the front end of the frame and between that point and the front end it was jammed; that the frame at the time of the trial was in the same condition as it was when taken out of the car.In cross-examination he testified that he did not see the men take the frame off the car, but saw it just after they had done so.The frame was received in evidence subject to objection made and exception taken "on the theory it might have been bent when taken out of the car."Whatever force this exception might possibly have, if there were no other evidence bearing on the question, we need...