Farrell v. Steele

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Farrell v. Steele

10 R.I. Dec. 129

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 22, 1933

DocketNo. 2736

StatusPublished

This text of 10 R.I. Dec. 129 (Farrell v. Steele) 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

Farrell v. Steele, 10 R.I. Dec. 129 (R.I. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

CARPENTER, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received in June, 1932, in Warwick, Rhode Island. Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,100. Thereupon the defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging the usual grounds, together with the ground that the defendant had discovered new and material evidence. No affidavits have been filed and no argument was made as to newly discovered evidence ; therefore’’ the Court has not considered that portion of the motion.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff stopped the automobile in which he was riding on Spencer Road, a public highway in said Warwick, .and was engaged in repairing the carburetor on the automobile, and while so engaged the defendant ran into the ’rear of the car so parked and injured the plaintiff.

For plaintiff: Pettine, Godfrey & Cambio. For defendant: P. W. McKiernan.

The plaintiff was a World War veteran and had been shell shocked and was not in altogether good health when he was injured, but the jury, after considering the matter, returned a verdict of $1,100.00 for the plaintiff. In this case the Court feels that the jury were justified and that substantial justice has been done.

Motion for new trial is denied.

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

CARPENTER, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received in June, 1932, in Warwick, Rhode Island. Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,100. Thereupon the defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging the usual grounds, together with the ground that the defendant had discovered new and material evidence. No affidavits have been filed and no argument was made as to newly discovered evidence ; therefore’’ the Court has not considered that portion of the motion.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff stopped the automobile in which he was riding on Spencer Road, a public highway in said Warwick, .and was engaged in repairing the carburetor on the automobile, and while so engaged the defendant ran into the ’rear of the car so parked and injured the plaintiff.

For plaintiff: Pettine, Godfrey & Cambio. For defendant: P. W. McKiernan.

The plaintiff was a World War veteran and had been shell shocked and was not in altogether good health when he was injured, but the jury, after considering the matter, returned a verdict of $1,100.00 for the plaintiff. In this case the Court feels that the jury were justified and that substantial justice has been done.

Motion for new trial is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 R.I. Dec. 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-steele-risuperct-1933.