Riccio v. Ginsberg

• Decision Date: 20 December 1927
• Docket Number: No. 6349.,6349.
• Citation: 139 A. 652
• Parties: RICCIO v. GINSBERG.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

139 A. 652

RICCIO

v. GINSBERG.

No. 6349.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec. 20, 1927.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Arthur P. Sumner, Judge.

Action by Mary Riccio against Max Ginsberg. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exception. Exception overruled, and case remitted, with direction to enter judgment.

Hogan & Hogan, of Providence, for plaintiff.

McElroy & Fallon, of Providence, for defendant.

STEARNS, J. The action is for negligence. After jury trial and direction of a verdict for the defendant, the case is here on plaintiff's bill of exceptions. The only exception is to the direction of a verdict.

On the night before the 4th of July, 1925, plaintiff, a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by one Joseph Riccio, was injured in a collision between Riccio's automobile and an automobile owned and operated by defendant. The accident occurred at the intersection of Westminster and Union streets, in Providence. Westminster and Union streets are one-way streets. Traffic on the former moves from east to west; on the latter, from south to north. Defendant was driving his automobile in a line of traffic which was moving slowly westward on Westminster street. Riccio came out from Dorrance street, two short city blocks east of Union street, and proceeded westward behind defendant's automobile, keeping about 10 or 11 feet to the rear; both automobiles were moving slowly at a speed of about 10 miles an hour. After coming to a stop by direction of a traffic officer, the traffic again began to move to the west. As defendant came near Union street, he saw an automobile coming therefrom onto Westminster street. This car crossed Westminster street ahead of him; he slowed up to allow it to cross and says he put out his hand as a signal for the cars behind him to stop, but before he came to a stop Riccio's car ran into him from the rear. Plaintiff and Riccio both say that defendant came to a sudden stop and did not give any signal.

Viewing the evidence, as we must, on a motion to direct a verdict, from a standpoint most favorable to the party objecting, the question is, Assuming that defendant stopped suddenly without giving any signal to the rear, was there any evidence of his negligence? If there was, it was erroneous to direct the verdict. Riccio says he was watching defendant's car, that he could have stopped within a distance of 2 feet if defendant had given him a signal. That Riccio was negligent, is clear. But, as plaintiff was a passenger, the negligence of Riccio does not in the circumstances impair her right of action if the defendant also was negligent. Hermann v. R. I. Co., 36 R. I. 447, 90 A. 813; O'Donnell v. United Electric Railways Co., 48 R. I. 18, 134 A. 642. The operator of an automobile is bound to exercise ordinary care. The Legislature (Gen. Laws it. I. 1923, c. 98) has established...