Aveta v. Mancini

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Aveta v. Mancini

5 R.I. Dec. 87

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 18, 1929

DocketNo. 56705; No. 56706

StatusPublished

This text of 5 R.I. Dec. 87 (Aveta v. Mancini) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aveta v. Mancini, 5 R.I. Dec. 87 (R.I. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

OAPOTGSTO, J.

Husband and wife brought separate suits for damage resulting from a collision of vehicles. The jury awarded $277.50 to Gaetano, the husband, and $202.50 to his wife, Catherine. The defendant moves for a new trial in each case.

The accident happened on Barring-[88]*88ton Bridge, shortly after dark on April 5, 1923. The weather was unsettled, if not actually foggy, or drizzly. The plaintiffs and the defendant are bakers living in the same neighborhood. Both parties were returning home after their daily deliveries. The two plaintiffs were proceeding homeward in a horse drawn vehicle. The defendant was driving a Ford truck. The baker wagon was struck from the rear, and both plaintiffs were thrown to the ground. Each plaintiff suffered appreciable though not serious injuries.

Eor plaintiffs: A. V. Pettine. For defendant: E. '0. 6tiness, F. J. O’Brien, Lester S. Walling.

The liability is clear. The damages are extremely conservative. The defendant should be grateful to his attorney for his success in winning the good will of the jury.

Motion for new trial denied in each case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OAPOTGSTO, J.

Husband and wife brought separate suits for damage resulting from a collision of vehicles. The jury awarded $277.50 to Gaetano, the husband, and $202.50 to his wife, Catherine. The defendant moves for a new trial in each case.

The accident happened on Barring-[88]*88ton Bridge, shortly after dark on April 5, 1923. The weather was unsettled, if not actually foggy, or drizzly. The plaintiffs and the defendant are bakers living in the same neighborhood. Both parties were returning home after their daily deliveries. The two plaintiffs were proceeding homeward in a horse drawn vehicle. The defendant was driving a Ford truck. The baker wagon was struck from the rear, and both plaintiffs were thrown to the ground. Each plaintiff suffered appreciable though not serious injuries.

Eor plaintiffs: A. V. Pettine. For defendant: E. '0. 6tiness, F. J. O’Brien, Lester S. Walling.

The liability is clear. The damages are extremely conservative. The defendant should be grateful to his attorney for his success in winning the good will of the jury.

Motion for new trial denied in each case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 R.I. Dec. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aveta-v-mancini-risuperct-1929.