Price v. Rhode Island Co.

• Citation: 66 A. 200,28 R.I. 220
• Parties: PRICE v. RHODE ISLAND CO.
• Decision Date: 13 March 1907
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

66 A. 200

28 R.I. 220

PRICE

v. RHODE ISLAND CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 13, 1907.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence County.

Action by May E. Price against the Rhode Island Company. Verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained, and cause remanded for new trial.

Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS, BLODGETT, JOHNSON, and PARKHURST, JJ.

Robert S. Emerson and Geo. H. Huddy, Jr., for plaintiff. Henry W. Hayes, for defendant

PER CURIAM. The accident which occasioned the injuries complained of was caused by a trolley car of the defendant striking and frightening a horse driven by the plaintiff across the track. The defendant asked the court to charge the jury as follows: "If you believe the plaintiff did not look for an approaching car before entering the track, she was guilty of contributory negligence, and cannot recover." To which the court replied: "I suppose that that request is based upon the fact that the plaintiff stated that at some distance away from the track she did pull up her horse and did look, and that after that she drove upon the track. Gentlemen, I shall decline to give you the charge in that form. I will say to you that the plaintiff was bound to exercise due care in going upon that track, and due care is dependent upon all the circumstances and all the facts of the case, as I have already explained to you. It is not necessarily negligence for the plaintiff not to look before driving upon the track; that is, it is not so as a matter of law, but it is a matter that you may take into consideration in determining whether she was guilty of negligence. If, at a point 20 or 25 or 30 feet, more or less, from the track, she held up her horse and looked in both directions, and then started on, and did not look again, and did not hold up her horse again, that is a circumstance which you may consider in determining whether or not she was guilty of contributory negligence; but I will not say to you, gentlemen, that this is negligence as a matter of law. It is a fact which you may take into consideration, and determine for yourself whether she was guilty of contributory negligence. Mr. Hoffman: If your honor please, I didn't mean by that request, as to whether or not she looked between the distance of 25 feet away from the track, whether she looked at all or not. The Court: Very well; I will say the same thing as to whether she looked at all or not. That, if the plaintiff...