Iannotti v. Caparelli

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Iannotti v. Caparelli

4 R.I. Dec. 70

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 5, 1928

DocketNo. 71624

StatusPublished

This text of 4 R.I. Dec. 70 (Iannotti v. Caparelli) 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

Iannotti v. Caparelli, 4 R.I. Dec. 70 (R.I. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BLODGETT, J.

Heard on motion for new trial filed by defendant after verdict for plaintiff: for $50.

Collision of automobiles at corner of Haven Avenue and 'Cranston Street, Sunday, January 9, 1927.

The car of plaintiff was driven around a dummy policeman in the center of the intersection of the two two streets. After passing the intersection there is testimony that some person on the sidewalk signalled and that the driver of plaintiff’s car made a sudden stop and that the car of defendant following closely collided with car of plaintiff.

The plaintiff testified that before coming to a stop he held out his arm to warn any following car. The testimony is conflicting upon this point but the case was submitted to the jury upon the question of negligence and contributory negligence, and the jury evidently believed the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, and the Court cannot say that the weight of evidence is so greatly in favor of defendant as to necessitate a new trial.

Motion denied.

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

BLODGETT, J.

Heard on motion for new trial filed by defendant after verdict for plaintiff: for $50.

Collision of automobiles at corner of Haven Avenue and 'Cranston Street, Sunday, January 9, 1927.

The car of plaintiff was driven around a dummy policeman in the center of the intersection of the two two streets. After passing the intersection there is testimony that some person on the sidewalk signalled and that the driver of plaintiff’s car made a sudden stop and that the car of defendant following closely collided with car of plaintiff.

The plaintiff testified that before coming to a stop he held out his arm to warn any following car. The testimony is conflicting upon this point but the case was submitted to the jury upon the question of negligence and contributory negligence, and the jury evidently believed the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, and the Court cannot say that the weight of evidence is so greatly in favor of defendant as to necessitate a new trial.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 R.I. Dec. 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iannotti-v-caparelli-risuperct-1928.