Stobie v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 07 March 1919 |
| Citation | 113 Me. 483,105 A. 714 |
| Parties | STOBIE v. SULLIVAN. SULLIVAN v. STOBIE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Action by George J. Stobie against Jeremiah F. Sullivan, together with an action by Jeremiah Sullivan against George J. Stobie. In the first action there was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and the second case was reported. Motion overruled in the first action, and judgment rendered for defendant in the second.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.
Carroll N. Perkins, of Waterville, and Clement F. Robinson, of Portland, for Geo. J. Stobie.
Harvey D. Eaton, of Waterville, and Terence B. Towle, of Bangor, for Jeremiah F. Sullivan.
These cross-actions arose out of an automobile collision which occurred in Etna on September 23, 1917, at about 7 p. m. The suit of Stobie v. Sullivan was brought on September 29, 1917, was tried at the November term of the superior court in Kennebec county, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,960, and is before this court on Sullivan's motion to set aside the verdict. The suit of Sullivan v. Stobie was brought on December 6, 1917, in the Supreme Judicial Court for Penobscot County, was tried at the April term, 1918, and is before this court on report.
The attorneys for Sullivan in their brief base their claim for a new trial on the first suit and a judgment in his favor in the second chiefly upon the excessive speed at which they allege Stobie was driving at the moment of collision. It is doubtless true that Stobie was traveling at a rapid rate; but, from the testimony and the location of his car after the accident, it is apparent that Sullivan was traveling at an equal, if not greater, speed.
The vital point of inquiry, however, is whether the collision took place on the north side of the road, which was Stobie's proper side as he was traveling westward from Hampden toward Waterville, or on the south side, which was Sullivan's proper side as he was going northerly toward Bangor. If each had been on his own side, no trouble would have occurred, as the highway at that point was a state road, straight, wide, smooth, and well wrought.
It was not the speed of either party that was the proximate cause of the accident, but the position of one car or the other on that side of the road where it did not belong. Bragdon v. Kellogg, 118 Me. 42, 105 Atl. 433.
In the first case the jury determined this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Malley v. Eagan
...Stack v. Baking Co., (Mo.) 223 S.W. 89; Sheffield v. Co., (N. D.) 190 N.W. 315; Provinsal v. Peterson, (Minn.) 169 N.W. 481; Stobie v. Sullivan, (Me.) 105 A. 714; Ellis v. Olson, (Wash.) 246 P. 944; Cross v. Rosencranz, (Kan.) 195 P. 857. The rule is well stated in Lavenstein v. Maile, (Va.......
-
Hill v. Walters
...Stephens (Wash.) 193 P. 684; O'Malley v. Eagan, 43 Wyo. 233. Dr. Thornber's speed was not the proximate cause of the accident. Stobie v. Sullivan (Me.) 105 A. 714. last clear chance doctrine should be applied in plaintiff's favor, if applied at all, for the reason that the defendant was gui......
-
Chandler v. State
... ... parties, as Eagan did in this case, traveled on the wrong ... side of the road. That was true in Stobie v ... Sullivan, 118 Me. 483, 105 A. 714. The court said in ... part: 'The vital point of inquiry, however, is whether ... the collision took ... ...
-
Paquin v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co.
...and struck the bus in its lane of traffic where it had the right to be. Such apparently was the situation in the case of Stobie v. Sullivan, 118 Me. 483, 105 A. 714, relied upon by the plaintiff in his brief. But such is not the case here. The purpose of the rule which we have quoted from K......