Smith v. Hopkins

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Smith v. Hopkins

1 R.I. Dec. 123

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 25, 1925

DocketNo.55788

StatusPublished

This text of 1 R.I. Dec. 123 (Smith v. Hopkins) 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

Smith v. Hopkins, 1 R.I. Dec. 123 (R.I. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon motion for new trial filed by defendant after verdict for plaintiff for $500.

Cause of action, damages suffered by reason of plaintiff, a small child, being struck by the automobile of defendant at 1:30 p. m.,' November 17, 1922.

The testimony, while somewhat conflicting, satisfied the court that the boy ran across the street from the rear of an automobile parked on the easterly side of Prairie avenue. The car of the defendant, just before the hoy started across, had turned southerly into Prairie avenue and was proceeding along in a southerly direction. The sole question as to liability on the part of defendant is whether the driver of the defendant’s car, under the doctrine of the last clear chance, could or should have seen the boy in time to have avoided striking him by using all means in his power. This was submitted to the jury and the court can not say that jury failed to properly weigh the evidence, even though the court might not on the evidence reach a like conclusion.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon motion for new trial filed by defendant after verdict for plaintiff for $500.

Cause of action, damages suffered by reason of plaintiff, a small child, being struck by the automobile of defendant at 1:30 p. m.,' November 17, 1922.

The testimony, while somewhat conflicting, satisfied the court that the boy ran across the street from the rear of an automobile parked on the easterly side of Prairie avenue. The car of the defendant, just before the hoy started across, had turned southerly into Prairie avenue and was proceeding along in a southerly direction. The sole question as to liability on the part of defendant is whether the driver of the defendant’s car, under the doctrine of the last clear chance, could or should have seen the boy in time to have avoided striking him by using all means in his power. This was submitted to the jury and the court can not say that jury failed to properly weigh the evidence, even though the court might not on the evidence reach a like conclusion.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 R.I. Dec. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hopkins-risuperct-1925.