Hallett v. Crowell

122 N.E. 264, 232 Mass. 344, 1919 Mass. LEXIS 777
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 1, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 122 N.E. 264 (Hallett v. Crowell) 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
Hallett v. Crowell, 122 N.E. 264, 232 Mass. 344, 1919 Mass. LEXIS 777 (Mass. 1919).

Opinion

Braley, J.

The presiding judge rightly refused to order a verdict for the defendant. The accident happened at about half-past eight o’clock in the evening while the parties, each going in the same direction, were using a public way as travellers. It is argued that as matter of law the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care. The jury doubtless could find that the plaintiff’s motorcycle, lighted as required by law, could be stopped at the rate of speed he was going within a distance of fifteen feet and that he was about twenty-five feet distant when he saw the rear wheel of the defendant’s unlighted farm wagon.

But the defendant was violating the statute, and the jury could find that the plaintiff did not know the wagon was ahead until he observed the glitter of his own headlight upon the rim of the right oútside rear wheel of the wagon, when, although driving at proper speed and immediately turning to the left as far as he could, he came into collision with the left rear wheel of the wagon and was [347]*347injured severely. Sts. 1911, c. 578, § 1; 1914, c. 182; 1916, c. 30; 1917, c. 344, Part V, § 18.

It was therefore a pure question of fact whether under all the circumstances he exercised the care of the ordinarily prudent traveller. Hennessey v. Taylor, 189 Mass. 583, 584.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Bresnahan v. Proman
43 N.E.2d 336 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Baldwin v. Mittry
102 P.2d 643 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1940)
Budd v. John B. Southee, Inc.
85 F.2d 513 (Second Circuit, 1936)
In Re Guardianship of Hoffman
267 N.W. 473 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)
Fredrick v. Koetter
267 N.W. 473 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)
Jacobs v. Moniz
192 N.E. 515 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Morris v. Sells-Floto Circus, Inc.
65 F.2d 782 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)
Stanger v. Hunter
291 P. 1060 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1930)
Woolner v. Perry
265 Mass. 74 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Tresise v. Ashdown
160 N.E. 898 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1928)
Mostov v. Unkefer
157 N.E. 714 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1927)
Murphy v. Hawthorne
244 P. 79 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Beebe v. Hannett
194 N.W. 542 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
McDonald v. Levenson
131 N.E. 160 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Lounsbury v. McCormick
129 N.E. 598 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 N.E. 264, 232 Mass. 344, 1919 Mass. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallett-v-crowell-mass-1919.