McSherry v. Peckham

Superior Court of Rhode Island

McSherry v. Peckham

4 R.I. Dec. 106

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 15, 1928

DocketNo. 3962

StatusPublished

This text of 4 R.I. Dec. 106 (McSherry v. Peckham) 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

McSherry v. Peckham, 4 R.I. Dec. 106 (R.I. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, J.

This is an action for negligence brought b'y the plaintiff, a pedestrian, who claims to have been injured by an automobile driven by the defendant and proceeding in the same direction that she was going. The action happened on a country road on the Island of Jamestown some time between 9:30 and 10 o’clock in the evening of July 21, 1927. The plaintiff having recovered a verdict for $255, the defendant moves for a new trial.

The weather was anything that the jury chose to make it. According to some testimony, it was a clear night; if this was not believed, then there was evidence to the effect that there was a fog along the shore and adjacent lowlands; if both these views were rejected, then one could find that there was a thick, almost impenetrable fog, [107]*107enveloping at least that portion of the island which included the road in question.

Eor Plaintiff: 'Sheffield & Harvey. For Defendant: Max Levy.

The evidence on the question of liability was as conflicting as the weather itself. In the absence of positive discrediting circumstances, the jury had a right to believe whatever portions of the testimony it chose to rely upon, even though other reasonable men might make a different choice and thereby reach a different conclusion. This Court sees no reason why the verdict should be disturbed.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

CAPOTOSTO, J.

This is an action for negligence brought b'y the plaintiff, a pedestrian, who claims to have been injured by an automobile driven by the defendant and proceeding in the same direction that she was going. The action happened on a country road on the Island of Jamestown some time between 9:30 and 10 o’clock in the evening of July 21, 1927. The plaintiff having recovered a verdict for $255, the defendant moves for a new trial.

The weather was anything that the jury chose to make it. According to some testimony, it was a clear night; if this was not believed, then there was evidence to the effect that there was a fog along the shore and adjacent lowlands; if both these views were rejected, then one could find that there was a thick, almost impenetrable fog, [107]*107enveloping at least that portion of the island which included the road in question.

Eor Plaintiff: 'Sheffield & Harvey. For Defendant: Max Levy.

The evidence on the question of liability was as conflicting as the weather itself. In the absence of positive discrediting circumstances, the jury had a right to believe whatever portions of the testimony it chose to rely upon, even though other reasonable men might make a different choice and thereby reach a different conclusion. This Court sees no reason why the verdict should be disturbed.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 R.I. Dec. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcsherry-v-peckham-risuperct-1928.