*1 370, § (a) and is our that an award (c) (1967)), for inflicted on the is not so $3000 injuries plaintiff exorbitant the trial refusal to set court’s aside manifestly the verdict was unreasonable. overruled.
Exceptions All concurred.
Strafford
No. 6492
Dorothy M. v. Kenneth J. Jones Kenneth A. Albert Turcotte J.
October Dorothy M. orally, for Railed, by brief and Jones. James J. *2 orally) Walsh and Charles (Mr. F. Hartnett Hartnett LawrenceJ. for Kenneth Jones. J. Millimet, Devine, and Parsons,
Fisher, Moran & Temple orally) C. Branch Branch Bartram (Mr. Stahl McDonough, A. Turcotte. for Albert by Dorothy M. against Actions her hus- Duncan, Jones J. Kenneth,
band, of a vehicle in which she was a operator the of by against operator Kenneth the passenger, and J. Jones the on vehicle with which was collision a Jones oper- on October 1966. was Route in Rochester Jones southerly direction his Volkswagen in a with ating wife, oper- Defendant Turcotte Dorothy, passenger. as a was Chevrolet, southerly in a direction. He had a 1960 also ating let out granddaughter the side to his west stopped along and had started ahead the at a store newspaper get left, the highway to turn cross intending of the road edge the side. driveway of on the enter the his house and the and the Turcotte vehicle was approached As Jones it, left the Turcotte turned the of process passing he about that was occurred. testified collision Jones was that front of his car per hour and the to miles A line when the occurred. yellow impact the double in the north- impact place took testified police officer about The car rolled over and came rest lane. bound Jones impact. by Trial resulted point 108 feet from the of Kenneth and Dorothy against of in a verdict a defendant’s favor Turcotte. against verdict Kenneth’s action of Kenneth by exceptions of raised questions law by were transferred Dunfey, J. nonsuit and directed defendant motions for Jones’ The evidence was sufficient denied. properly verdict plaintiff Dorothy and the jury, take the cases to which she testimony her as matters about by not bound Theriault, 107 N.H. be could mistaken. Griffin (1966); Russell, 108 N.H. A.2d Wadsworth A.2d say it an abuse discretion We cannot that was for the court to allow a officer with police eight years’ experi- ence, who had about one hundred accidents investigated per and who had taken courses accident year special investiga- tion, to an as to the reaction express point impact, time, or the Walker, of the cars on Walker v. angle impact. 106 N.H. Grossman’s, 468 (1965); Currier v. A.2d Nor an improper limitation on cross-examination to exclude questions officer as to the of a filed Turcotte. meaning report was taken to the to the effect
Exception charge fault on the of defendant be based might on a violation of RSA prohibits crossing of a double line in an and in certain yellow except emergency *3 other situations. It is that neither Mrs. specified argued Jones nor Turcotte were those whom the statute was among intended to and that cannot therefore take protect they of its violation. Sherburne, See v. 85 advantage L’Esperance 103, N.H. 155 A. (1931). 203 was concerned with L’Esperance which were in 1963 statutory provisions (RSA 250:1 repealed (Vol. 2-A and which 1964)) had as Replacement provided follows: “250:1. Another. If a Meeting person traveling a with a vehicle meets another so highway person traveling in the direction, he shall turn to opposite seasonably of the center of the right road,, traveled of the so that each the other without interference.” may RSA pass 250:1 2, (Vol. 1955). These were the provisions of the progenitor RSA and no present 262-AT6 have obviously application to the circumstances of the cases before us.
The statute referred to in the instructions to the these cases forbade “to the left of nor across an crossing unbroken line marked on the with painted highway”, 262-A:21; Lacroix, see Masterson v. specified exceptions. 658 of such a statute is not travelers each only protect approaching directions, but also interfer opposite prevent vehicle, ence with an overtaken seek to cross such may a line “to ... to ... permit ingress property adjacent 262-A:21; Blashfield, D. Automobile Law highway.” see 2 § 112.2 & Practice ed. (3d 1965). It was so held in Mueller Trudell, v. 78 S.D. 378 (1960), N.W.2d where ... prevents control pointed
the court out “such traffic an way right interference with the overtaken vehicle’s Co., overtaking vehicle.” v. Accord, Walker American Bakeries 440, 442-43, Tidwell N.C. S.E.2d See referring Clarke, Nev. P.2d a only not protect a statute intended to pronged “double but a vehicle from an direction approaching 658-59, 495; at as well.” at Vancleave overtaken P.2d 1964). (Tenn. excep App. 399 S.W.2d Napier, is overruled. relating tion instructions to the statute the admission complains The defendant about of the evidence of accident, some distance south speed signs, both north- and one to relating one to southbound traffic Although no error here. prejudicial bound traffic. We find at the they speed not for southbound traffic did control accident, of evidence of their existence receipt location lived new trial in these cases. ground is not for a findably frequently and vicinity passed signs these the circumstances They among knew of their existence. The court charged under he acted. cir- under the
test of lawful was what was reasonable speed posted “only one factor speed and that the cumstances no new on this grant We cause trial consider.” find issue. miles he 35-40 Defendant testified that was *4 in stated argument for defendant Turcotte
per hour. Counsel your overestimate “you usually an accident don’t that after forty.” at The defendant speed, it was least probably so speed that invited the to find that his contends this hour, of which he claims there per exceeded 40 miles highway, no the evidence of marks the evidence. Given in the that his the of which was 44’ 6” fact longest length, once, it to rest vehicle turned over at and that came least collision, 108 feet from of we that the point say the cannot argument legitimate advocacy. exceeded the bounds of to it error defendant also contends that was contributory the of fault of Mrs. withdraw issue proof in of change imposed the because of the burden by of RSA upon parties repeal the on this issue 507:8 placed a matter of defense and contributory negligence made 225:2, 1969, Laws defendant. of the the burden upon proof 35:1, 1970, 12, effective 1969; Laws effective May August cf. continued 4, that RSA 507:8 We are of the 1970. opinion occurred to accidents which August prior apply that date. occurred after even trial Murphy though irresistible Railroad, A. 967 (1915). “[T]he is, intended that if had inference that the legislature actions, statute should [new] language apply pending for reasonable doubt used no room would have been leaving no 94 A. 969. We find at at that subject.” upon error in the withdrawal of the issue of Mrs. contribu- Jones’ 109 N.H. fault from the Cormier v. Conduff, tory jury. of defendant’s all We have examined no error. and find exceptions overruled; on the verdicts.
Exceptions judgment concurred. Grimes, dissented in the others J., part; Grimes, J., in part: dissenting
I
from that
of the court’s
dissent
respectfully
262-A:21,
relates to the violation
that
yellow-line
view,
In
the same
as
statute.
this statute has
purpose
my
the old “law of the road”
required
persons
when
to turn
directions
seasonably
opposite
meeting
of the center. RSA
statute was
This
250:1.
repealed
right
ch.
It
held
in 1963 and was
262-A.
superseded
by
Sherburne,
155 A.
L’Esperance
of the road” referred to above was
“law
applicable
one another
those
only
passing
opposite
meeting
directions,
no
when one vehicle was
it had
application
other,
it was
turn
and that
making
path
of RSA
error
to submit
that situation.
collision between vehicles
is also
passing
prevent
While it
one another
directions.
secondarily
may
other vehicles within
to the avoidance of accidents with
relate
vehicles,
I
cannot
the orbit
created danger
oncoming
*5
conceive that
it was intended
against
any way
guard
or
which was
traffic
being
danger
left-turning
Co.,
overtaken.
(La.
Beraud v. Allstate Ins.
1971) App. ; 375 Co., 261 So.2d v. Diamond Sevin Drilling 1972) ; Pa. 23 A.2d Salvitti v. Throppe, liability based the law of this State that It has been long injuries only for statutory duties attaches on a violation designed from risks which the statute was result A. 715 N.H. Gordon, protect against. Flynn v. (1933); 92 A.2d v. Martin Kelley, any there In no evidence that was this there was case headed Turcotte was coming opposite direction. in the He left. turn to the until he made his the same direction for benefit was not therefore one whose 262-A:21 car with a injured by was not collision enacted. Mrs. Jones danger nor from a direction coming from the by a injured was not car and therefore created by such protect of the it was the statute “hazard from which [her].” 716. Since A. at Gordon, 86 N.H. at Flynn designed the enactment was consequences none of breach, a breach resulted from its such guard have against some wrong though even not an actionable does constitute In case injurious consequence resulted. this has consequ- any injurious more showing there is not even a line yellow being from Kenneth’s ences resulted stayed than have resulted if he had to the right would it. It error therefore to to the submit jury.
I Grossman’s, am aware that N.H. Currier v. (1966), and Masterson Lacroix, statutes were similar submitted A.2d going in cases vehicles in the direc- involving same However, oncoming tion. cases vehicles involved both not applicability statute was raised.