Goodie v. Price

3 Citing cases

  1. Downs v. Poulin

    216 A.2d 29 (Me. 1966)   Cited 25 times
    In Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me. 1966), it was held that Maine's parental immunity law is analogous to its interspousal immunity law.

    See also: Sawyer v. J.M. Arnold Shoe Co., 90 Me. 369, 371, 373, 38 A. 333; McCann v. Twitchell, 116 Me. 490, 492, 102 A. 740; Goodie v. Price, 125 Me. 36, 37, 130 A. 512; Ritchie v. Perry, 129 Me. 440, 152 A. 621; Beaulieu v. Tremblay, 130 Me. 51, 53, 153 A. 353; Trumpfeller v. Crandall, 130 Me. 279, 285, 155 A. 646; Poland v. Dunbar, 130 Me. 447, 449, 157 A. 381; Maxey v. Sauls, supra; Schneider v. Schneider, supra; Norfolk Southern Railroad Co. v. Gretakis, supra; Badigan v. Badigan, supra; Shaker v. Shaker, supra; Bulloch v. Boulloch, 45 Ga. App. 1, 163 S.E. 708; Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832, 114 S.W.2d 468; Lund v. Olson, 183 Minn. 515, 237 N.W. 188; Brumfield v. Brumfield, supra; 19 A.L.R.2d page 435; Parks v. Parks, 390 Pa. 287, 135 A.2d 65, 73; Baker v. Baker, 364 Mo. 453, 263 S.W.2d 29. "It is difficult to see how the fact, if it be a fact, that the defendant carried liability insurance covering this accident can impose a liability where none would otherwise exist.

  2. Deschaine v. Deschaine

    153 Me. 401 (Me. 1958)   Cited 10 times
    In Deschaine v. Deschaine, 153 Me. 401, 140 A.2d 746 (1958), suit was brought by a mother against her son for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident.

    " Other illustrative cases are: Beaudoin v. Mahaney, Inc., 131 Me. 118, 159 A. 567; Beaulieu v. Tremblay, 130 Me. 51, 153 A. 353; Trumpfeller v. Crandall, 130 Me. 279, 155 A. 646; Poland v. Dunbar, 130 Me. 447, 157 A. 381; Goodie v. Price, 125 Me. 36, 130 A. 512; McCann v. Twitchell, 166 Me. 490, 102 A. 740. Defendant's counsel gained no right or privilege to bring insurance into his argument from the "my insuring man" answer of defendant on cross examination.

  3. Ritchie v. Perry

    152 A. 621 (Me. 1930)   Cited 24 times

    The opinion states, "A careful study of the evidence does not satisfy us that the verdict was wrong, either as to defendant's liability, or as to the amount of damages awarded the plaintiff." Apparently some members of the Bar were impressed with the view that the position taken by the Court in McCann v. Twitchell, supra, created an opportunity to get before the jury the immaterial and prejudicial fact of insurance and suffer no more severe penalty than an instruction from the Court to the jury that the fact should be disregarded in so far as liability or the extent of damages was concerned; and in the case of Goodie v. Price, 125 Me. 36, it appeared that plaintiff's attorney was guilty of "deliberately pursuing a course of cross-examination of defendant's son for the purpose of disclosing the fact that an insurance company was defending the cause." That case came before this court on general motion, in connection with which defendant urged that "though the verdict might be permitted to stand upon the evidence pertaining to the accident and the manner in which it happened, the case was prejudiced against the defendant by improper conduct of plaintiff's attorney."