Google Instant Street View

With a rapidly deteriorating macroeconomic landscape, as shown by October PMIs, in our view the ECB will have to tread very carefully going into 2024 and will have no choice but to lower interest rates."

occurred late at night in a city; that the plaintiff was on the rightside of the back seat of the automobile, whose driver, previous tothe collision, was proceeding on a street toward an intersection witha second street, which crossed the first nearly at right angles, intendingto continue on a third street which entered the same intersection andcontinued in the same general direction as the first street; that theplaintiff, who testified that she "did some looking out for herself," waslooking toward her right, but, although her view was clear, she sawno approaching vehicle; that the driver of the automobile, proceedingslowly, crossed the intersection, and that, when almost the entirelength of the automobile was beyond the intersection and in the thirdstreet, it was struck at the right rear wheel by the taxicab with suchforce that, although it weighed forty-two hundred pounds, the wheelswere lifted, the driving shaft was detached from the body and thebumper was knocked in three or four feet toward the left hand curb.In crossing the intersection, the plaintiff's host did not go to the rightof the intersection of the second and third streets. Held, that

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://geags.com/2y5yUk 🔥

(2) In the circumstances, there was no error in a refusal by thetrial judge to instruct the jury, in substance, "If the operator of theplaintiff's automobile failed to keep to the right of the center of theintersection of" the third street in its junction with the second inturning into the third, "he thereby violated the ordinance with referenceto making such left-hand turns";

An instruction to the jury in the judge's charge, defining the "intersection"and applying G. L. c. 89, 8, as amended by St. 1926, c. 330, 1, by stating that it was difficult to describe the intersection in thecircumstances shown by a plan of the place of the accident whichwas in evidence because there were two streets coming in very closetogether and opening into another one, but that he "should supposethe point of intersection between" the first street and the secondstreet would be that part found by the extension of the sides of thetwo streets, was free from error.

"Now, there is another statute; that is, in regard to thelaw of the road, when people meet at intersecting ways.In this case the accident happened at the junction of thesetwo streets. As you know, there is this right of way statute,which provides, in substance, that every person driving anautomobile approaching an intersecting way shall grant theright of way at the point of intersection to a vehicle approachingon his right. The vehicle approaching from hisright has the right of way, with this proviso, that suchvehicle is arriving at the point of intersection at approximatelythe same instant .... What does the point ofintersection mean? Ordinarily, where you have two streetsthat cross each other ... like a cross, the point of intersectionis the area that is common to both streets; thesquare, in other words, formed by the side lines of the twostreets. Now it is very difficult from this chalk [the chartshown on page 463] to ... [describe exactly the pointof intersection] applicable to this case, because there aretwo streets coming in very close together and opening out

into another one. I should suppose the point of intersectionbetween Essex Street and Chauncy Street would be... that part of Essex Street and Chauncy Street whichwould be common to both of them. If you extended thewest line of Chauncy Street across Essex, and the east lineof Chauncy Street across Essex, and then extended thenorth and south lines of Essex Street to the west, you wouldget something like a square, which would be the point ofintersection between Chauncy Street and Essex Street.Now, if two vehicles were approaching that point of intersectionat approximately the same instant, one coming downChauncy Street south, and the other going on Essex Streeteast, the vehicle which was coming on Essex Street, east,would have the right of way over the vehicle coming onChauncy Street south ... but this statute does not applyunless ... they are approaching the point of intersection,that square, in other words, at approximately the sameinstant. If the car going east on Essex Street would notcome to that point of intersection at approximately the sameinstant, but some time subsequent to the time when thecar coming down Chauncy Street south would get there, thenthat car going on Essex Street would not have the right ofway. If you should find that the taxicab - that is, if youshould find that the two cars were approaching the intersectionat approximately the same instant, and if you shouldfind that the accident was caused by the car going downChauncy Street not yielding the right of way to the taxicab,then there would be no negligence on the part of the taxicabdriver, if the taxicab driver was driving his car in a reasonableway, and the collision was caused by the failure of theother car, Mr. Cunningham's car, to yield the right of way."There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the first action inthe sum of $1,750, and for the plaintiff in the second actionin the sum of $1,000. The defendant alleged exceptions.

of Harrison Avenue and Essex Street. The plaintiff testified that when the automobile reached Essex Street she looked to the right and straight ahead and saw no approaching vehicle; that her view to the right was unobstructed; that just before the accident she saw lights which seemed to be partly from the side and front. There was further testimony that no vehicles were approaching from the right on Essex Street as the Cunningham automobile started to cross and that the view of its occupants to the right was unobstructed for three hundred or four hundred feet. All the testimony came from the plaintiff and witnesses called by her, the defendant offering no evidence.

It is plain that upon the entire evidence verdicts could not properly have been directed for the defendant. When a collision occurs under circumstances like those here present, at the corner of two streets or at an intersection of streets, the due care of the plaintiff and the negligence of the defendant are generally questions of fact for the jury. Salisbury v. Boston Elevated Railway, 239 Mass. 430. Daris v. Middlesex & Boston Street Railway, 241 Mass. 580. Hamel v. Sweatt, 256 Mass. 581. Bogert v. Corcoran, 260 Mass. 206, 209. Bagdazurian v. Nathanson, 269 Mass. 386. The jury could have inferred from the testimony that the taxicab was travelling along Essex Street at a high rate of speed, or that it turned into Essex Street from Harrison Avenue Extension (which joined Essex Street to the right of Chauncy Street) at a time when the Cunningham automobile was crossing Essex Street. The fact that the taxicab struck it in the rear when it had almost passed over Essex Street was a circumstance tending to show negligence of the defendant. Payson v. Checker Taxi Co. 262 Mass. 22, 26. The evidence required that the case be submitted to the jury upon the question of negligence of the defendant. Barnett v. Boston Elevated Railway, 244 Mass. 418. Stickel v. Cassasa, 268 Mass. 59. Austin v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 269 Mass. 420. 17dc91bb1f