Harrison v. United Electric Railways Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Harrison v. United Electric Railways Co.

224 A.2d 376, 101 R.I. 464

DecidedDecember 6, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.2d 376 (Harrison v. United Electric Railways Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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

Harrison v. United Electric Railways Co., 224 A.2d 376, 101 R.I. 464 (R.I. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action of trespass on the case for negligence is here on the plaintiff’s exception to a ruling of a justice of the superior court granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

After reviewing the record we are satisfied that the evidence as well as the reasonable and legitimate inferences which can -fairly be drawn therefrom even when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff would not support a verdict in his favor. Therrien v. First National Stores, Inc., 63 R. I. 44; Rogers v. Sundlun, 54 R. I. 329; Sarcione v. Outlet Co., 53 R. I. 76. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the trial justice to rule as he did.

The plaintiff’s exception to the granting of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict is overruled, and the case is remitted to- the superior court for the entry of judgment on the verdict as directed.

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

Per Curiam.

This action of trespass on the case for negligence is here on the plaintiff’s exception to a ruling of a justice of the superior court granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

After reviewing the record we are satisfied that the evidence as well as the reasonable and legitimate inferences which can -fairly be drawn therefrom even when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff would not support a verdict in his favor. Therrien v. First National Stores, Inc., 63 R. I. 44; Rogers v. Sundlun, 54 R. I. 329; Sarcione v. Outlet Co., 53 R. I. 76. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the trial justice to rule as he did.

The plaintiff’s exception to the granting of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict is overruled, and the case is remitted to- the superior court for the entry of judgment on the verdict as directed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.2d 376, 101 R.I. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-united-electric-railways-co-ri-1966.