Brooks v. Rowell
Brooks v. Rowell.
Opinion of the Court
BOTJLDIN, J.
The action is for damages to plaintiff’s automobile resulting from a collision with the automobile of defendant at -the intersection of two public highways.
Defendant’s refused charge No. 2 seeks to invoke the speed limit provision of subdivision 3, subsec. (b), § 51, Highway Act of 1927, General Acts 1927, p. 367, and its violation as contributory negligence pn the part of plaintiff. Its refusal was justified for failure to hypothesize that such negligence “proximately” contributed to the injury.
*617 The evidence presented a clear i-ssue for the jury. No error appears in the court’s overruling a motion for new trial on the ground of weight of evidence.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.