(DOWNLOAD) "Holden v. Bloom" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Holden v. Bloom
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 30, 1943
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
DOLAN, Justice. This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a minor, as a result of alleged negligence on the part of the defendant. The case was tried first in the District Court together with an action of the minor's father for consequential damages. At the close of the evidence the defendant made two requests for rulings as follows: '1. As a matter of law there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant which contributed to the plaintiff's injury. 2. There is sufficient evidence as a matter of law to warrant the court in finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.' The Judge allowed the defendant's first request for a ruling. He also 'allowed the defendant's second request * * * as modified that the evidence does not require such a finding but may warrant it.' He denied, among others, the plaintiff's request for a ruling that the evidence warranted a finding for the plaintiff. The Judge found for the defendant in both cases because he could not 'find the evidence warrants a finding of the defendant's negligence.' Both cases were reported to the Appellate Division which ordered that the findings for the defendant be vacated and that a new trial be had. There was evidence at this first trial that would have warranted the Judge in finding the following facts: On July 28, 1939, the defendant was driving his automobile at a speed of twenty-five miles an hour, easterly, on Pearl Street in Newton. The locus is in a thickly settled residential district. Pearl Street is thirty-two to thirty-four feet wide 'between the gutters and is intersected by Thornton Street (about the same width), the easterly line of Thornton Street being about one hundred feet west of where the accident took place.' Including the defendant, three persons were sitting on the front seat of his vehicle. The defendant first saw the plaintiff and another boy playing about on the edge of the sidewalk or in the gutter not more than a foot from the sidewalk. They were then at a distance from him of about one hundred forty-nine feet. There were no parked vehicles nor vehicles coming toward the defendant to obstruct his view. The street was straight, the weather clear, the time midafternoon. The defendant was proceeding in a straight course not less than three feet distant from the sidewalk where the boys were playing. Approaching this point he did not diminish the speed at which he was operating his automobile. The front of the vehicle passed the boys but the plaintiff was struck by some part of the right side of the automobile. He 'was dragged about a yard and lay with his head at the curb.' Just before the accident occurred the plaintiff, then ten years old, was about a foot from the sidewalk, talking and 'fooling' with his brother Gerald. He heard the defendant's automobile approaching, but did not see it nor pay any particular attention to it.