Skene v. Graham
| Decision Date | 14 December 1915 |
| Citation | Skene v. Graham, 114 Me. 229, 95 A. 950 (Me. 1915) |
| Parties | SKENE v. GRAHAM et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On Motion and Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Kennebec County, at Law.
Action by John R. Graham and others against James W. Skene. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants move for new trial and except to certain rulings on instructions. New trial granted.
Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and SPEAR, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.
Williamson, Burleigh & McLean, of Augusta, for plaintiff. Ryder & Simpson, of Bangor, for defendants.
This is an action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a collision between the plaintiffs and defendants' automobiles. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,175.
The case is before the court on the defendants' general motion for a new trial, and exceptions to the refusal of the presiding justice to direct a verdict for the defendants, and refusal to give certain requested instructions.
The collision occurred at the corner of Western avenue and Sewall street in Augusta, on August 26, 1913. The plaintiff was driving a Ford car easterly on Western avenue, while the defendants were traveling westerly in a Packard car on the same street. The plaintiff was driving his own car, the defendants' car being in charge of a chauffeur. The southerly side of Western avenue was closed to traffic from a point 100 feet from its junction with Sewall street, but the northerly side of the street was open and in use by the public on the day in question, and there was sufficient room for automobiles and other vehicles to pass and repass; the width of that side of the street being 24 feet. The plaintiff left his garage with the intention of going to Manchester, and had passed up Western avenue some 275 feet when he decided to return to the garage. His counsel questioned him as follows:
The plaintiff claims that the defendants' car was driven out of its course, and from its lawful position on the northerly side of Western avenue, across said avenue and into collision with his car, which was, and had been for some distance, proceeding on the (his) extreme right-hand side of said avenue; that he was in the exercise of due care, traveling 10 or 12 miles an hour, while the defendant was driving 40 miles an hour. This condition, if true, would constitute culpable negligence on the part of the defendants.
But the defendants, in support of their motion for a new trial, contend that the evidence did not authorize the jury to find for the plaintiff, that the collision was the result of the plaintiff's own carelessness, and that any damage resulting therefrom was due to his fault and want of due care.
Harry A. Haas, who was driving the defendants' car, testified:
The defendants corroborate Mr. Haas in all important particulars, and he is corroborated by the plaintiff's witness Brown, the only witness introduced by the plaintiff who saw the collision, upon the most vital point in the case.
Mr. Brown testified as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
O'Malley v. Eagan
... ... 763; Baker v. Zimmerman, (Ia.) ... 161 N.W. 479; Hatch v. Daniels, (Vt.) 117 A. 105; ... Hicks v. Morgan, (Tex.) 259 S.W. 263; Skene v ... Graham, (Me.) 95 A. 950; Tooker v. Perkins, 150 ... P. 1138; Potter v. Glassell, 83 So. 898. The trial ... court had statutory ... ...
-
Van Gilder v. C. & E. Trucking Corp.
...course he adopted was a natural one in the emergency presented. O'Malley v. Eagan, 43 Wyo. 233, 2 P.2d 1063, 77 A.L.R. 582; Skene v. Graham, 114 Me. 229, 95 A. 950; Stack v. General Baking Co., 283 Mo. 396, 223 S.W. Second: Final Location Of Vehicles and Debris The ultimate resting place of......
-
Ruff v. Fruit Delivery Co.
... ... 532, 121 So. 636, 123 So. 906; ... Jacob v. Edwards, La.App., 171 So. 165; Morrison ... v. Perry, 104 Utah 139, 122 P.2d 191; Skene v ... Graham, 114 Me. 229, 95 A. 950; Loucks v. Fox, ... 261 Mich. 338, 246 N.W. 141; School v. Milwaukee ... Automobile Ins ... ...
-
Field v. Webber
...v. Thomas, 123 Me. 286, 122 A. 773. Nor, in every situation, is it an act of negligence for a driver to turn to the left. Skene v. Graham, 114 Me. 229, 95 A. 950; Id., 116 Me. 202, 100 A. The defendant had, in general, and under reasonable restrictions as to the exercise of care by him, a r......