Chappell v. United Electric Railways Co.

6 R.I. Dec. 183
CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island
DecidedJune 13, 1930
DocketNo. 81384
StatusPublished

This text of 6 R.I. Dec. 183 (Chappell v. United Electric Railways Co.) 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
Chappell v. United Electric Railways Co., 6 R.I. Dec. 183 (R.I. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

WALSII, J.

Heard on motion for new trial on the usual grounds after [184]*184verdict for plaintiff for $1,500.

For plaintiff: Walling & Walling. For defendant: Clifford Whipple. Earl Sweeney.

This is the husband’s case for loss of services, etc., of his wife, plaintiff in the ease of Mary E. Chappell vs. United Electric Railways Co., No. 81388 in this Court.

The facts are as stated by us in the rescript filed in the case of Mary E. Chappell vs. United Electric Railways Co., supra. The exhibits show about $600 already paid by the husband for hospitals, doctors, nurses and medicines for his wife as a result of the injuries she sustained in the collision of defendant’s cars. This expense will continue to a greater or less degree, presumably, for the expectancy of his wife’s life, five to six years. Taking into account the loss of the services of the wife, we do not feel that the award of $1,500 is exorbitant.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 R.I. Dec. 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chappell-v-united-electric-railways-co-risuperct-1930.