Sears v. A. Bernardo & Sons
| Decision Date | 06 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 5510.,5510. |
| Citation | 115 A. 647 |
| Parties | SEARS v. A. BERNARDO & SONS. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Arthur P. Sumner, Judge.
Action by John Sears against A. Bernardo & Sons. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions. Exceptions sustained, and case remitted for new trial.
Christopher J. Brennan, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Ernest P. B. Atwood, of Providence, for defendants.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence brought to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff and for damages to his automobile caused by a collision between an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff and a truck owned by the defendants as copartners and operated by one of the partners. The trial in the superior court resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $400. The case is before this court on defendants' exceptions to the admission of testimony, to portions of the charge to the jury, to the refusal to charge as requested, and to the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial.
The collision occurred at the intersection of College and South Main streets in the city of Providence, when the plaintiffs automobile was proceeding in an easterly direction and the defendants' truck in a northerly direction. The portion of South Main street from which the truck emerged immediately before the accident was a one-way street, and the truck was driven out of South Main street in the direction forbidden by the city ordinance.
The fifteenth exception is to the following instruction to the jury:
Whether the defendant was guilty of negligence was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. The fact that the defendants' truck proceeded along a one-way street in the direction prohibited by the ordinance is a fact for the jury to consider in connection with all other facts bearing upon the question of whether the defendants were guilty of negligence, but it was error to charge as a matter of law that the violation of the city ordinance constituted negligence. Oates v, Union R. R. Co., 27 R. I. 500, 63 Atl. 675. The fifteenth exception is sustained.
The defendants took 20 exceptions to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury as requested. It appears that the court adjourned to the following morning immediately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Penna Charcoal Co.
...violation may be considered with all the facts in evidence in passing upon the questions of due care and of negligence. Sears v. Bernardo & Sons, 44 R. I. 106, 115 A. 647; McWright v. Providence Telephone Co., 47 R. I. 196, 131 A. 841. In the absence of notice to the contrary, the driver of......
-
Bertrand v. Di Carlo
...was charged. In support of this position they relied on Sitko v. Jastrzebski, 68 R.I. 207, 27 A.2d 178 (1942); Sears v. A. Bernardo & Sons, 44 R.I. 106, 115 A. 647 (1922); Oates v. Union R.R., 27 R.I. 499, 63 A. 675 The defendant objected on the ground that the adoption of said ordinance wa......
-
Brey v. Rosenfeld.
...bearing upon the question of a defendant's negligence, but that it did not, as a matter of law, constitute negligence. Sears v. Bernardo & Sons, 44 R.I. 106, 115 A. 647. The weakness of the plaintiffs' case as we view it is that, admitting that defendant violated the ordinance in not obtain......
-
Sitko v. Jastrzebski
...public is the cause of the injury evidence of the violation is prima facie evidence of negligence." (Italics ours.) Sears v. A. Bernardo & Sons, 44 R.I. 106, 115 A. 647. This rule respecting the violation either of an ordinance or of a general statute has been consistently applied by this c......