Fernald v. French

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Fernald v. French

120 A. 58, 122 Me. 565, 1923 Me. LEXIS 236

DecidedMarch 19, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A. 58 (Fernald v. French) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fernald v. French, 120 A. 58, 122 Me. 565, 1923 Me. LEXIS 236 (Me. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Automobile collision with a verdict of $3,000 for the plaintiff, a passenger in one of the cars. This was the second trial. At the first trial the plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,250 which was set aside by the Law Court on the ground of lack of evidence of any negligence on the part of the defendant. “There is no proof that the defendant was violating the speed law” or “was driving at an excessive rate” says the opinion. Fernald v. French, 121 Maine, 4.

At the second trial this gap was filled, if the jury believed the testimony, as they evidently did. One Logan, an avowedly disinterested witness who was produced by the plaintiff and who did not testify at the first trial, says that he was on the sidewalk about three hundred feet from the place of collision and just prior thereto when his attention was attracted by the great speed at which the defendant’s car was approaching him, not less than forty miles an hour; that almost immediately he heard the crash, turned about, and saw the result.

Under our statute a speed in excess of 35 miles per hour is expressly prohibited, except under special permit. Public Laws, 1919, Chap. 211, Sec. 16. True, the defendant and the occupants of his car claim, as before, that their speed was only eight or ten miles per hour. But this vital issue was a question of fact for the jury under all the circumstances and conditions. With this new and positive testimony, squarely supporting the plaintiff’s contention as to reckless driving on the part of the defendant, the court does not feel authorized to disturb the verdict. The finding of the jury stands.

The amount of the verdict, considering the nature and extent of the resultant injuries, is not so extravagant as to require modification by the court. Motion overruled.

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

Automobile collision with a verdict of $3,000 for the plaintiff, a passenger in one of the cars. This was the second trial. At the first trial the plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,250 which was set aside by the Law Court on the ground of lack of evidence of any negligence on the part of the defendant. “There is no proof that the defendant was violating the speed law” or “was driving at an excessive rate” says the opinion. Fernald v. French, 121 Maine, 4.

At the second trial this gap was filled, if the jury believed the testimony, as they evidently did. One Logan, an avowedly disinterested witness who was produced by the plaintiff and who did not testify at the first trial, says that he was on the sidewalk about three hundred feet from the place of collision and just prior thereto when his attention was attracted by the great speed at which the defendant’s car was approaching him, not less than forty miles an hour; that almost immediately he heard the crash, turned about, and saw the result.

Under our statute a speed in excess of 35 miles per hour is expressly prohibited, except under special permit. Public Laws, 1919, Chap. 211, Sec. 16. True, the defendant and the occupants of his car claim, as before, that their speed was only eight or ten miles per hour. But this vital issue was a question of fact for the jury under all the circumstances and conditions. With this new and positive testimony, squarely supporting the plaintiff’s contention as to reckless driving on the part of the defendant, the court does not feel authorized to disturb the verdict. The finding of the jury stands.

The amount of the verdict, considering the nature and extent of the resultant injuries, is not so extravagant as to require modification by the court. Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A. 58, 122 Me. 565, 1923 Me. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernald-v-french-me-1923.