Cossart v. Pratt

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cossart v. Pratt

223 N.E.2d 80, 351 Mass. 708, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 917

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 223 N.E.2d 80 (Cossart v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cossart v. Pratt, 223 N.E.2d 80, 351 Mass. 708, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 917 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant has excepted to the denial of her motion for a directed verdict in an action of tort brought for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile accident. The defendant, while operating a motor vehicle in a heavily settled school area, was approaching a crosswalk in the roadway, an intersection sign, and also a school crossing sign. The left front end of the defendant’s car struck the plaintiff’s vehicle on the right side at a time when the plaintiff’s ear was turning into a driveway and was almost at a ninety degree angle to the edge of the road in front of the defendant’s vehicle. The force of the contact pushed the plaintiff’s vehicle fifty feet and caused considerable damage. The defendant’s car continued for a distance of ninety-six feet into a stone wall, striking it with sufficient force to push about four feet of the wall forward and some stones of the wall fifteen feet. The plaintiff had no memory of the accident. In these circumstances the jury could properly find that the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant. DeLeo v. Jefferson, [709]*709331 Mass. 317, 320. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was an issue for the jury. Lindgren v. Marraffa, 350 Mass. 376, 379, and cases cited.

Frank P. Hurley (Ralph H. Willard, Jr., with him) for the defendant. John F. Keenan for the plaintiff.

Exceptions overruled.

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

The defendant has excepted to the denial of her motion for a directed verdict in an action of tort brought for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile accident. The defendant, while operating a motor vehicle in a heavily settled school area, was approaching a crosswalk in the roadway, an intersection sign, and also a school crossing sign. The left front end of the defendant’s car struck the plaintiff’s vehicle on the right side at a time when the plaintiff’s ear was turning into a driveway and was almost at a ninety degree angle to the edge of the road in front of the defendant’s vehicle. The force of the contact pushed the plaintiff’s vehicle fifty feet and caused considerable damage. The defendant’s car continued for a distance of ninety-six feet into a stone wall, striking it with sufficient force to push about four feet of the wall forward and some stones of the wall fifteen feet. The plaintiff had no memory of the accident. In these circumstances the jury could properly find that the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant. DeLeo v. Jefferson, [709]*709331 Mass. 317, 320. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was an issue for the jury. Lindgren v. Marraffa, 350 Mass. 376, 379, and cases cited.

Frank P. Hurley (Ralph H. Willard, Jr., with him) for the defendant. John F. Keenan for the plaintiff.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 N.E.2d 80, 351 Mass. 708, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cossart-v-pratt-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack