Opinion
No. 4134.
Decided December 2, 1952.
The negligence of a bailee may not be imputed to his bailor. In an action by the plaintiff bailor to recover for damages to his motor vehicle operated by his bailee when it was in collision with the defendant's motor vehicle at an intersecting way a verdict for the defendant was justified on the evidence. A verdict will be directed in favor of a plaintiff as a matter of law only when his case is established by the sole reasonable inference from undisputed facts.
CASE, for negligence in the operation of an automobile involving a collision between plaintiff's car and that of the defendant at the intersection of Routes 113 and 113A, in Tamworth. Plaintiff, whose car was being operated by a bailee at the time, seeks to recover for the damage thereto resulting from this accident. Trial by the Court (Leahy, J.) resulted in a verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff moved to have the verdict set aside as being against the evidence, the weight of the evidence and the law and on the further ground that on the evidence there should have been a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law. In denying this motion the Court stated that he found as a fact that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the operator of plaintiff's car. Plaintiff's exceptions thereto were reserved and transferred.
Other facts appear in the opinion.
Paul E. Nourie, for the plaintiff, furnished no brief.
Cooper, Hall Cooper and Paul Creteau, for the defendant, furnished no brief.
The relation between plaintiff and the operator of his automobile at the time of the accident being that of bailer and bailee only, the latter's negligence would not be imputed to the plaintiff. Cain v. Wickens, 81 N.H. 99, 100; Wilkins v. Page, 91 N.H. 409. The only issue presented by this appeal therefore is whether in spite of the verdict for the defendant it should be ruled as a matter of law that he was negligent with a resulting verdict for the plaintiff. Verdicts are rarely directed in favor of the party having the burden of proof. A plaintiff is entitled to such a verdict only when his case is established by the sole reasonable inference from undisputed facts. Ali v. Gingras, 97 N.H. 289, 290. Such is the situation here.
It was within the province of the trier of facts to arrive at the following conclusions from the evidence. The defendant, who was approaching the intersection from the right of the operator of plaintiff's car, brought his motor vehicle nearly to a stop before entering the intersection. He looked to his right and also to his left from which direction plaintiff's automobile was coming. His visibility in the latter direction was limited to a distance of about 225 feet because of a hill at that point. It was night and the headlights on both cars were on. When defendant did not see anyone coming from his left, he shifted his car into second and started across. After traveling 30 or 40 feet, the very next thing he saw was a flash across his headlights followed by the crash. The right front bumperette of his car came in contact with the right rear fender of plaintiff's car when defendant's car was a little over the center line of the highway.
It could also be found that the operator of plaintiff's car did not see the defendant until the former was under a blinker light at the intersection and that plaintiff's car traveled about 50 to 60 feet after the accident and came to a stop heading in the opposite direction whence it came.
On that evidence we are of the opinion that the Trial Court could properly arrive at a verdict for the defendant and we cannot say that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict as a matter of law. Ali v. Gingras, supra; see Bissonnette v. Cheverette, 87 N.H. 211; Copadis v. Haymond, 94 N.H. 103, 105.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.