Hillside Leasing, Inc. v. Sandin

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hillside Leasing, Inc. v. Sandin

259 A.2d 851, 106 R.I. 369, 1969 R.I. LEXIS 637

DecidedDecember 22, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.2d 851 (Hillside Leasing, Inc. v. Sandin) 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

Hillside Leasing, Inc. v. Sandin, 259 A.2d 851, 106 R.I. 369, 1969 R.I. LEXIS 637 (R.I. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

This civil action, originating in the Superior Court, involves a collision between a truck and automobile which occurred about 8:45 a.m. on October 29, 1966, in the town of West Warwick. The truck, owned by one plaintiff and carrying goods belonging to the other, was proceeding easterly on West Warwick Avenue when it collided with the defendant’s automobile which was traveling in the opposite or westerly direction along the same highway. According to the truck operator, his vehicle was at a complete standstill in the eastbound lane when the accident occurred. The defendant, on the other hand, testified that his vehicle did not cross the midline of the highway, and that h,e did not see the truck until it struck his automobile.

The case was submitted to a jury on the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, last clear chance and damages. The verdict was for defendant. On plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial the trial justice reviewed the material evidence, and, in the exercise of his independent judgment, rejected defendant’s testimony. Then, viewing the record thus purged of what had been discarded as lacking credibility, he decided that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence and granted the motion for a new trial and the defendant appealed.

In our judgment the trial justice correctly performed the duty which was incumbent upon him in considering a motion for a new trial. In setting aside the verdict he neither overlooked nor misconceived any material evidence, nor was he clearly wrong. Under our well-established rule his decision will not be disturbed. Barboto v. Epstein, 97 R. I. 191, 196 A.2d 836.

The defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment granting plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial is affirmed, [371]*371and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Gelfuso and Cappalli, Richard A. Cappalli and Alan P. Gelfuso, for plaintiffs. Keenan, Rice, Dolan & Reardon, Leonard A. Kiernan, Jr., for defendant. Powers, J., did not participate.

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

Pee Curiam.

This civil action, originating in the Superior Court, involves a collision between a truck and automobile which occurred about 8:45 a.m. on October 29, 1966, in the town of West Warwick. The truck, owned by one plaintiff and carrying goods belonging to the other, was proceeding easterly on West Warwick Avenue when it collided with the defendant’s automobile which was traveling in the opposite or westerly direction along the same highway. According to the truck operator, his vehicle was at a complete standstill in the eastbound lane when the accident occurred. The defendant, on the other hand, testified that his vehicle did not cross the midline of the highway, and that h,e did not see the truck until it struck his automobile.

The case was submitted to a jury on the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, last clear chance and damages. The verdict was for defendant. On plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial the trial justice reviewed the material evidence, and, in the exercise of his independent judgment, rejected defendant’s testimony. Then, viewing the record thus purged of what had been discarded as lacking credibility, he decided that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence and granted the motion for a new trial and the defendant appealed.

In our judgment the trial justice correctly performed the duty which was incumbent upon him in considering a motion for a new trial. In setting aside the verdict he neither overlooked nor misconceived any material evidence, nor was he clearly wrong. Under our well-established rule his decision will not be disturbed. Barboto v. Epstein, 97 R. I. 191, 196 A.2d 836.

The defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment granting plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial is affirmed, [371]*371and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Gelfuso and Cappalli, Richard A. Cappalli and Alan P. Gelfuso, for plaintiffs. Keenan, Rice, Dolan & Reardon, Leonard A. Kiernan, Jr., for defendant. Powers, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.2d 851, 106 R.I. 369, 1969 R.I. LEXIS 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillside-leasing-inc-v-sandin-ri-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack