Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantverdicttestimonywilloverruled
plaintiffdefendanttrialverdictmotionoverruled

Related Cases

Zielinski v. State, 269 Or.App. 143, 344 P.3d 114
View Case »
Bethlehem Engineering Export Co. v. Christie, 105 F.2d 933, 125 A.L.R. 1441
View Case »
E.E.O.C. v. Liberty Loan Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1978 WL 13871, 18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 301
View Case »
Smith v. Caterpillar, Inc., 338 F.3d 730, 92 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 595, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,548
View Case »
Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U.S. 556, 11 S.Ct. 178, 34 L.Ed. 776
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Oddo v. Cardi, 100 R.I. 578, 218 A.2d 373

Facts

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, were passengers in a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant when it collided with a car driven by Warren H. Stutts. The Stutts vehicle swerved out of control, crossing into the southbound lanes where the defendant's vehicle was traveling. The collision occurred on South County Trail in North Kingstown, and the plaintiffs claimed injuries resulting from the accident.

It is not disputed that plaintiffs, who are man and wife, were passengers in an automobile owned by defendant and operated by her on South County Trail, so called, in the town of North Kingstown. The defendant's motor vehicle was proceeding south in the southbound lanes of said highway and came into collision with a motor vehicle operated by Warren H. Stutts, which had been proceeding in a northerly direction in the northbound lanes of said highway.

Issue

Was the defendant motorist exercising due care at the time of the collision, given the circumstances of the approaching vehicle crossing the center line?

The Supreme Court, Roberts, C.J., held that where approaching automobile crossed middle line of highway when motorist's automobile was about six hundred feet away and some seven seconds elapsed before collision, question was for jury whether motorist in all circumstances was in exercise of due care after having observed approaching automobile cross middle line.

Rule

A motorist is not required to anticipate that an oncoming vehicle will suddenly cross into their lane until it becomes reasonably apparent that such an action is imminent.

The rule is well stated in Rawding v. Lonsdale Bakery Co., 71 R.I. 50, at page 54, 42 A.2d 275, at page 276: ‘Until it became reasonably apparent that the automobile was going to cross the center line of the highway, the defendant had the right to assume that its driver would observe the rules of the road and that he would not act in disregard of his own safety and the safety of others by cutting across the path of the truck, which was in plain view and but a relatively short distance away.’

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the defendant claimed to have seen the Stutts car spin across the road and applied her brakes. However, conflicting testimony from Dr. Oddo indicated that the Stutts car began to cross the center line when the defendant's vehicle was still about 600 feet away, allowing the jury to determine whether the defendant acted with due care under the circumstances.

The jury obviously could have accepted the version so testified to by Dr. Oddo and, if it did so, the cases, in our opinion, would differ completely from Rawding v. Lonsdale Bakery Co., supra. In this state of the evidence there was a clear question for the jury as to whether defendant in all the circumstances was in the exercise of due care after having observed the erratic change in direction of the Stutts car.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overruled the defendant's exceptions and affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, remitting the cases to the Superior Court for entry of judgment.

Exceptions overruled and cases remitted to Superior Court for entry of judgment on verdict.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Vincent J. Oddo and his wife, prevailed because the jury found that the defendant was not exercising due care, as evidenced by the conflicting testimonies regarding the events leading to the collision.

The jury found in each case for the plaintiff. The defendant's motion for a new trial in each case was denied, and the defendant is now in this court prosecuting her bills of exceptions.

You must be