del Ponte v. Giannessi

• Decision Date: 12 February 1932
• Docket Number: Nos. 6896, 6897.,s. 6896, 6897.
• Citation: 158 A. 727
• Parties: DEL PONTE v. GIANNESSI (two cases).
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

158 A. 727

DEL PONTE

v. GIANNESSI (two cases).

Nos. 6896, 6897.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 12, 1932.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Antonio A. Capotosto, Judge.

Action by Vito Del Ponte, p. a., and by Michael Del Ponte, against Gaetano Giannessi. On defendant's exceptions to granting of plaintiffs' motions for new trial.

Exceptions overruled in each case, and case remitted.

Pettine, Godfrey & Cambio, of Providence, for plaintiff.

Henshaw, Lindemuth & Baker, of Providence, for defendant.

SWEENEY, J.

In our opinion filed May 7, 1930, 51 R. I. 27, 150 A. 254, the court remitted these cases to the superior court with direction to pass upon plaintiffs' motions for new trials in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion "and to deny same unless the court approves the finding that defendant was liable."

The trial justice then considered the question of liability, and wrote a rescript in which he said: "A careful study of the evidence leads this court to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was aware of the plaintiff's negligence and that he had a reasonable opportunity to avoid injury to the plaintiff had he exercised ordinary care. The question of liability, therefore, is determined in favor of the plaintiff. Motion for new trial granted." Defendant has brought the cases to this court by exception to this decision. He claims that on the finding of facts made by the trial justice defendant is not liable under the doctrine of the "last clear chance." The trial justice based his conclusion that defendant was liable under this doctrine upon the testimony of the driver of defendant's truck.

We have duly considered the testimony of this witness, as well as that of all the other witnesses, and are of the opinion that the question of the "last clear chance" was not raised by the evidence. Therefore it appears that the trial justice determined the question of liability in favor of the plaintiffs for an erroneous reason and has granted their motions for new trials on the ground that the damages awarded them were grossly inadequate.

It is generally held that where an order is correct it will not be reversed on appeal because the trial court based its decision on an erroneous reason, and this rule has been applied in granting a new trial. 4 C. J. 663, 665; 2 R. C. L. 191; McKittrick v. Bates et al., 47 R. I. 240, 132 A. 610; In Russo v. R. I. Co., 38 R. I. 323, 327, 95 A. 666, 667, this court said: "If the decision of the trial judge in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is justified by the evidence, it is not important to our consideration that he may have reached such a conclusion through faulty reasoning, or even through a mistake of law or fact."

These cases were tried together and submitted to the jury on three issues: (1) Whether plaintiff Vito was negligent; (2) whether defendant's driver was negligent; and (3) whether the driver had the "last clear chance" to avoid injuring Vito. The jury answered these issues by returning a general verdict for each plaintiff and awarding Vito $175 and his father $285.55.

It is conceded that the damages awarded plaintiffs are grossly inadequate and...