These are actions of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs at about half past four in the afternoon of an April day while riding together in an automobile owned by Thomas F. Jennings and driven by Fred Jennings аt the intersection of Main Street and Willow Street in Waltham, and for damage to the automobile. Thе cases were tried together, and there were verdicts for the plaintiffs. The defendant now arguеs only those of his exceptions which relate to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict in his favor in each action and to the judge’s exclusion of his offer in evidence of the declaration filed by each plaintiff in another action brought by him against one Tucci (hereinafter mentiоned) to recover for the same injuries for which the present actions are brought.
Main Street runs east and west. Willow Street runs in a southerly direction from Main Street. The plaintiffs’ evidence taken in its asрect most favorable to them tended to show the following facts: The Jennings automobile was proceeding easterly on Main Street approaching Willow Street. The defendant was also driving his аutomobile on Main Street in the same direction behind the Jennings automobile. It was raining. A large truck, heаvily loaded, was being driven by Tucci on Main Street approaching Willow Street from the opposite direction. The Jennings automobile and the truck were each proceeding at a spеed of about twenty to twenty-five miles per hour and were each about the same distance frоm Willow Street. Suddenly the truck, without giving any signal or slowing down, turned to its left toward Willow Street and “shot” in front of the Jennings аutomobile. Fred Jennings “swung” to his left, applied his brake “as quickly as he could” and brought the Jennings automobile practically to a stop, when it came into collision lightly with the right rear wheel of the truck, which stopped at the same time. No one was
On this evidence the judge would not have been justified in ruling as matter of law either that the injuries and dаmage resulted from negligence of the plaintiffs or either of them, or that they did not result from negligence of the defendant. Both questions were for the jury. The jury could well find that the driver of the Jennings automobile, confronted by a sudden emergency caused by the fault of the truck driver, did all that an ordinarily prudent drivеr would have done under the circumstances. As to the defendant’s negligence, while it is true that no rule of res ipso loquitur applies to a case of rear end collision, yet “Slight evidence of the circumstances . . . may place the fault/’ Hendler v. Coffey,
In each case the entry will be
Exceptions overruled.