Tinker v. Trevett

• Decision Date: 17 November 1959
• Citation: 156 A.2d 233,155 Me. 426
• Parties: Bernice E. TINKER v. Robert M. TREVETT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 233

156 A.2d 233

155 Me. 426

Bernice E. TINKER v. Robert M. TREVETT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 17, 1959.

Wendall R. Atherton, Bangor, for plaintiff.

Eaton, Peabody, Bradford & Veague, Bangor, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, DUBORD and SIDDALL, JJ.

WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice.

In this accident case a sedan operated by the plaintiff and a truck operated by the defendant collided in a street intersection in Bangor. Exceptions to the direction of a verdict for the defendant are sustained.

The issues are whether a jury would be warranted in finding that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. In directing the verdict the presiding Justice ruled that as a matter of law either the defendant was in the exercise of due care, or the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, or both.

Under the familiar rule we take the evidence with its inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ward v. Merrill, 154 Me. 45, 141 A.2d 438.

The jury could have found as follows:

The intersection is formed by West Broadway, running north and south, and Lincoln Street, running east and west. A stop sign on Lincoln Street controlled traffic entering West Broadway from the west. The plaintiff approached the intersection from the north on West Broadway and the defendant from the west on Lincoln Street.

The accident took place on a cold, clear winter morning. The streets were covered with hard packed snow and ice, and in particular Lincoln Street, to use defendant's words, 'It was very icy. It was as icy as it could be, I believe.'

The defendant proceeding at about 20 miles per hour entered Lincoln Street from Webster Street, a block west of the scene of the accident. Lincoln Street has a descending grade which becomes steeper a short distance from Webster Street.

The defendant lost control of his truck on Lincoln Street. He tried without success to check its slide by application of the brakes, and when about 100 feet from the intersection on realizing that he could not stop at the stop sign, he attempted to turn the truck into the ditch. He continued, however, to slide down the hill into the intersection colliding with the plaintiff's sedan. Brake marks were observed by the police for a distance of 150 feet to the point of impact.

The cars collided in the southwest quarter of the intersection. The damage to the plaintiff's sedan included damage to the right front fender and wheel with dents on the right rear fender. The front end of defendant's truck was damaged. The front of the sedan had almost reached the south line of the intersection when the crash occurred.

In our view of the record, the issue of defendant's negligence or due care was clearly for the jury to determine.

First, the defendant failed to obey the statute in not stopping at the stop sign. R.S. c. 22, § 89. The violation of statute was in itself evidence of negligence. There is no merit in the suggestion that there was no evidence introduced to prove the lawful establishment of the stop sign. No such evidence was required. The statute provides that a stop sign, such as this, is to be taken as prima facie lawfully established, and there was not the slightest shred of evidence to indicate otherwise. R.S. c. 22, § 88.

Second, the explanation given by the defendant of his failure to obey the traffic laws did not demand a finding of due care. Skidding alone does not prove negligence. The surrounding circumstances may, however, supply the facts which justify such a finding. Marr v. Hicks, 136 Me. 33, 1 A.2d 271.

In the instant case the jury could well consider the defendant's speed, the downgrade, the icy condition of Lincoln Street, and the application of brakes. These would be among the important...