Tripp v. Taft
| Decision Date | 23 October 1914 |
| Citation | 219 Mass. 81,106 N.E. 578 |
| Parties | TRIPP v. TAFT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Requests for rulings numbered 1, 2, and 14, were as follows:
1. Upon all the evidence and pleadings the plaintiff is not entitled to recover against the defendant.
2. The plaintiff cannot recover in this action, because it has not been proven that the plaintiff's intestate was in the exercise of due care, nor is there any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
14. There is no absolute or fixed speed limit at which automobiles may be operated in this commonwealth, and it is for the jury to find that the rate of speed was reasonable and proper, having regard to the traffic, use of the way and safety of the public, no matter at what particular rate of speed the defendant operated his car at the time of the accident.
Frank B. Hall and John H. Mathews, both of Worcester, for plaintiff.
John H Meagher, Emil Zaeder, and Chas. F. Boyle, all of Worcester for defendant.
This is an action to recover damages for the death of a girl, seven years old, who received mortal injuries from collision with an automobile. There was evidence from which it might have been found that the deceased, a strong healthy girl with good eyesight and hearing and with the intelligence usual to one of her years, was standing on the sidewalk on the westerly side of a street at a point nearly opposite the 'girls' gate' of the yard of the school on the other side of the street where she was a pupil, at fifteen minutes before the usual time for the opening of school. The width of the traveled part of the street between the sidewalks was about 43 feet. There were two street railway tracks in the street and many vehicles and automobiles usually were passing. At a time when two cars about two minutes apart were moving on the westerly track and the defendant was approaching from the opposite direction on the other side of the street and there were no other vehicles near by, and when 'a trolley car had passed' on the westerly track, and 'after the trolley car had cleared her some five or six feet,' and when a boy 'ran out in the street from a point * * * just north of the school gate and waved his hat at the driver of the automobile so it would not do any harm,' she 'started at a jog trot, as children do when they run across a road,' or 'ran across' the street 'something a little faster than a walk,' and was struck and fatally injured by the automobile driven by the defendant, no warning of its approach being given. In some respects this evidence was contradicted sharply, but its weight was for the jury.
If these were the facts, the deceased might have been found to have been in the exercise of the due care which reasonably could be expected from one of her age. It has not and could not be contended successfully that the parents of such a girl were negligent in permitting her to be unattended under these circumstances. She was on her way to school and directly in front of the schoolhouse yard. At such a place and hour travelers in automobiles might be expected to move at a moderate speed. The car which had just passed to some extent obscured her view of the opposite side of the street to her right, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial