Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

DUBOIS v. GOLDSTEIN

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Bristol.
Oct 27, 1931
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Practice, Civil, Requests, rulings and instructions. Negligence, Motor vehicle. Way, Public: right of way. Motor Vehicle, Operation.

A judge of a district court, hearing an action of tort for personal injuries sustained in a collision of motor vehicles at the intersection of two streets, where the evidence was conflicting on the issue as to which vehicle reached the intersection first, committed no error of law in granting, as statements of law, requests by the defendant for rulings of law as to the right of way based on the aspect of the evidence favorable to the defendant, and then finding facts favorable to the plaintiff and making a general finding for the plaintiff.

BY THE COURT.

This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant while each party was a traveller in a motor vehicle at the intersection of two streets. The defendant presented three requests for rulings touching the respective rights of travellers in motor vehicles at the intersection of streets. The trial judge allowed each of these requests as a statement of law. He thereafter found as facts that the motor vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding had the right of way and, in effect, that the defendant wrongfully interfered with this right of way, thereby causing the collision resulting in the injuries to the plaintiff. The evidence was somewhat conflicting. The judge therefore properly instructed himself as to the law concerning the aspect of the evidence most favorable to the defendant. John Hetherington Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 210 Mass. 8, 18. The granting of these requests for rulings of law was not incompatible with the facts found. They did not imply a finding of the facts to which they were applicable. Having granted these requests from the viewpoint of the defendant, it was still his duty to find the facts as in his opinion the evidence required. In this there was no error of law.

Order dismissing report affirmed.