Rouleau v. Blotner

• Citation: 152 A. 916
• Parties: ROULEAU v. BLOTNER (two cases).
• Decision Date: 06 January 1931
• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

152 A. 916

ROULEAU

v. BLOTNER (two cases).

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

Jan. 6, 1931.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Scammon, Judge.

Actions by Mary Rouleau and by Doris Rouleau, by her next friend, against Maurice Blotner. Verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant brings exceptions.

Judgment for defendant.

Case for negligence. Trial by jury with verdicts for the plaintiffs. The court (Scammon, J.) denied the defendant's motions for nonsuits and directed verdicts, and allowed the defendant a bill of exceptions. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Sullivan & White and George A. Wagner, all of Manchester, for plaintiffs.

O'Connor & Saidel, of Manchester, for defendant.

PEASLEE, C. J.

This is an automobile collision case. The defendant's servant was driving a heavy truck northerly on Birch street, in Derry, on the morning of November 11, 1926. There was a considerable amount of traffic moving in the opposite direction. The driver desired to turn west into an intersecting street, called South avenue. He moved along at about five miles an hour, waiting for a break in the otner line of traffic. When the way was cleared and the car in which the plaintiffs were riding was from one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet distant, approaching from the north, he turned across the south-bound line of travel into the avenue.

The plaintiffs' driver saw the truck when it was just south of the avenue, and thought it was standing still. The road was straight and the view unobstructed, but he thereafter confined his observation to the clear road within twenty feet of his car and did not look as far down as the avenue again until he saw the truck across his path and about twenty feet from him.

One ground of negligence claimed is the alleged lack of a signal that the defendant's driver was about to turn. It is doubtful whether the evidence would sustain a finding of failure to signal, but it is not necessary to decide the point. Conceding that it could be found, it cannot be made the basis for a recovery here.

Negligence, to be actionable, must becausal. And since the evidence is conclusive that the plaintiffs' driver would not have seen the signal, if given, its absence would be no ground for complaint. In this the case differs radically from those relied upon, wherein there was no warning by sound of an approaching object. Such a signal forces itself upon the unobserving party. But if he were a deaf man, the failure to sound whistle, bell, or horn would be immaterial.

The only other claim of fault is the general ground that it was careless to attempt to make the turn when and as the defendant's servant did. Traffic has the right to move in a reasonable way; and a driver may...