[DOWNLOAD] "Brule v. Union St. Ry. Co. Monty v. Same" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Brule v. Union St. Ry. Co. Monty v. Same
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 28, 1943
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
DOLAN, Justice. These are two actions of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the collision of a street car of the defendant with an automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding at the time of the collision. The cases were referred to an auditor whose findings of fact were not to be final. The material findings of fact of the auditor may be summed up as follows: On August 18, 1940, at about 6:30 P.M., the plaintiffs were riding as passengers in an automobile owned and operated by one Jussaume. The vehicle was being driven in an easterly direction on Locust Street in New Bedford at a speed of about thirty miles an hour. As 'it reached the intersection of Summer Street * * *. slowed down as he proceeded through the intersection.' The street car of the defendant had entered the intersection 'ahead of' the automobile at a speed of about eight miles an hour. Jussaume either did not see the street car or was endeavoring to cross the intersection 'ahead' of it. The operator of the street car observed the approach of the automobile when it was fifty feet away from the intersection, and believed that the operator of the automobile would give him the right of way and would not attempt to cross in front of him. The street car had reached the middle of the intersection when it came into collision with the automobile, which was proceeding through the intersection without changing its course or 'further slackening' its speed. As a result of the collision, the automobile was pushed sideways over to the southeast corner of the intersection, facing in a northeasterly direction. The street car came to a stop about three feet from the point of collision with its left front end resting against the left side of the automobile. There was no other vehicular traffic approaching the intersection, and nothing to obstruct the view of either operator. It was still daylight, the weather was clear, and the roadway was smooth and dry. Both ways at the intersection are approximately twenty-five feet wide. The street car rails are in the center of Summer Street, extending north and south across Locust Street. Although the driver of the automobile was clearly negligent in failing to see and grant the right of way to the street car, and such failure was a contributory cause of the collision, the operator of the street car 'was also negligent in failing to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent and careful operator in approaching and crossing the intersection under the circumstances as they were known to him; * * * his failure to exercise that care was a contributing cause of the collision; * * * his insistence on his technical right of way under the existing circumstances was a contributing cause of the accident; * * * he could have brought his car to a stop and have avoided the collision.' The auditor also found that, at the time of the accident, both plaintiffs were in an intoxicated condition and neither saw nor heard the approach of the electric car until the instant before the collision occurred, but he stated that he was not satisfied that these facts showed that the plaintiffs failed to exercise proper care for their own safety, or that they were causally related to or contributed to the accident, or that there was anything in the existing circumstances that they could have done to avert the collision. He further found, as a fact upon all the evidence, that the plaintiffs sustained personal injuries and consequential damages as a result of the concurrent negligence of both operators and were entitled to recover compensation for said injuries and damages; and that 'there is a causal connection between the' plaintiffs' 'injuries and the negligent conduct of the operator of the street car of the defendant.' It is unnecessary to recite the findings of the auditor as to the nature of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs and the amounts to which he found they were entitled as damages.