Holbrook v. United Electric Railways Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Holbrook v. United Electric Railways Co.

4 R.I. Dec. 94

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 28, 1928

DocketNo. 71960; No. 71961

StatusPublished

This text of 4 R.I. Dec. 94 (Holbrook v. United Electric Railways Co.) 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

Holbrook v. United Electric Railways Co., 4 R.I. Dec. 94 (R.I. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, J.

These actions, brought by husband and wife to recover for personal injuries claimed to have been received by each in a collision between an automobile driven by the plaintiff Arthur Holbrook and a bus of the defendant company, were tried together by agreement of counsel. The jury returned a verdict of $175 in favor of Arthur Holbrook and a verdict of $300 for Mildred Holbrook. The defendant moves for a new trial. No question is raised as to the amounts awarded.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Orms and 'Smith streets, in the City of Providence, about 6:30< A. •M. on May iF>, 1927. The roadway was wet although no rain was falling at the time. The testimony as usual was conflicting. The evidence of John Taylor, a witness for the plaintiff, was the most convincing exposition of the occurrence given by either side. After a careful consideration of all the credible testimony, this Court is of the opinion that Mildred Holbrook was injured as the result of the concurring negligence of both drivers. The fair preponderance of the evidence shows that Arthur Holbrook and the bus driver were both lacking in that degree of prudence that the exigency of the moment reasonably required. Mildred Holbrook, being a passenger in the automobile, stands in a different position. In her case the jury was justified in finding that at the time of the collision she was free from blame.

" In the case of Arthur Holbrook, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is granted. In the case of Mildred Hol-brook, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied.

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

CAPOTOSTO, J.

These actions, brought by husband and wife to recover for personal injuries claimed to have been received by each in a collision between an automobile driven by the plaintiff Arthur Holbrook and a bus of the defendant company, were tried together by agreement of counsel. The jury returned a verdict of $175 in favor of Arthur Holbrook and a verdict of $300 for Mildred Holbrook. The defendant moves for a new trial. No question is raised as to the amounts awarded.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Orms and 'Smith streets, in the City of Providence, about 6:30< A. •M. on May iF>, 1927. The roadway was wet although no rain was falling at the time. The testimony as usual was conflicting. The evidence of John Taylor, a witness for the plaintiff, was the most convincing exposition of the occurrence given by either side. After a careful consideration of all the credible testimony, this Court is of the opinion that Mildred Holbrook was injured as the result of the concurring negligence of both drivers. The fair preponderance of the evidence shows that Arthur Holbrook and the bus driver were both lacking in that degree of prudence that the exigency of the moment reasonably required. Mildred Holbrook, being a passenger in the automobile, stands in a different position. In her case the jury was justified in finding that at the time of the collision she was free from blame.

" In the case of Arthur Holbrook, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is granted. In the case of Mildred Hol-brook, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 R.I. Dec. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holbrook-v-united-electric-railways-co-risuperct-1928.