Preview
y
|
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
i
MIDDLESEX, ss. ! SUPERIOR COURT (WOBURN)
I
JUSTIN URBAN
) Fi
Plaintiff ) IN Te OFFICE OF
; POO THE COUNTY OF TIDOLESEX
v.
. ) FEB 18 2021
KEITH WESTON AND )
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL )
SERVICES CORP. )
Defendants )
C.A. NO.: 1781CV00814
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANEL
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 51(b), the Defendants respectfully requests that the three judge
panel consider the following instructions. :
1.
RULES OF THE ROAD
It is well established in Massachusetts that “even if a driver has the right of way under G.L.
c. 89 § 8, the right of way is by no means absolute. Its possession does not absolve the
driver of the duty to exercise due care. Indeed, a driver who has the right of way at an
intersection may be negligent, or even foolhardy, if he asserts his right on some occasions.
Possession of the right of way is only one consideration to be taken into account in
determining whether a driver has performed his duty to use due care.” Canane v. Dandini,
355 Mass 72, 76 (1968).
Pursuant to G.L. 90 § 17, “no person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at
a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of
the way and the safety of the public . . . hotwithstanding [the] establishment of a speed
limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a
special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or
‘highway conditions.” See M.G.L. c. 90, gil7.
¢B0958133.1)
“[T]he driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive
a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely
clear of the overtaken vehicle ... If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle
at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent
lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake.” See M.G.L. c. 89, § 2.10.
{8098133.1)
|
|
“When any way has been divided into lanes} the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the
vehicle shall be entirely within a single laneland he shall not move from the lane . . . until
he has first ascertained that such movement|can be made with safety.” See M.G.L. c. 89,
§ 4A.
Drivers must maintain their lanes and avoid drifting or swerving into an adjoining lane or the
shoulder, and drivers must not move from their respective travel lanes without first
ascertaining whether it is safe to do so;ithese two directives operate independently.
Commonwealth v. Larose, 483 Mass. 323 (2019).
A driver may violate the marked-lanes statute either by failing to maintain the driver's
intended lane of travel or by failing to ascertain the safety of a movement from that lane before
executing that movement. Commonwealth v. Larose, 483 Mass. 323, 329 (2019).
In no case shall a driver enter or proceed through an intersection without due regard to the
safety of other persons within the intersection, regardless of what indications may be given
by traffic control signals. See 720 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.06.
Massachusetts law requires that “the driver of any vehicle before starting, stopping, turning
from a direct line, or backing shall first see that such movement can be made in safety. If such
movement cannot be made in safety or if it interferes with unduly with the normal movement
or other traffic, said driver shall wait for a more favorable opportunity to make such a
movement. See 720 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.06.
An operator of a motor vehicle using a public highway owes a duty of ordinary care at all
times to avoid placing himself or others in danger and to exercise ordinary care at all times
to avoid a collision. In addition, the operator owes a duty to keep a proper lookout and
make reasonable observations as to traffic and other conditions. See Fitzgerald v. Packard,
317 Mass. 431, 432 (1944); Spano v. Wilson, 361 Mass. 209 (1972).
The driver of a motor vehicle shall not cross or enter an intersection, which it is unable to
proceed through, without stopping and thereby blocking vehicles from travelling in a free
direction. A green light is no defense to blocking the intersection. The driver must wait
another cycle of the signal light, if necessary. See M.G.L. c. 89, § 9.wy
f
'
i
1
i
|
THE DEFENDANTS,
KEITH WESTON AND
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP.,
BY ITS ATTORNEYS,
Aa
Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852)
Email: SCarroll@boyleshaughnessy.com
Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800)
Email: SPavao@boyleshaughnessy.com
Boyle | Shaughnessy Law PC
25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 201
Braintree, MA 02184
Phone: (617) 451-2000
Fax: (617) 451-5775
DATED: 2/22/21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and/or Sup. Ct. R. 9A, I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a copy of
the foregoing document has been served via e-mail on all parties or their representatives in this action as listed below
this 22" day of February, 2021:
Counsel for Plaintiff, Justin Urban
Ernest J. Palazzolo, Jr., Esq.
Richard J. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan & Sullivan, LLP
83 Walnut Street
Wellesley, MA 02481
AE
Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852)
Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800)
Counsel for Defendants, Keith Weston and
Interstate Electrical Services Corp.
{B0958133.1)
Preview
y | COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS i MIDDLESEX, ss. ! SUPERIOR COURT (WOBURN) I JUSTIN URBAN ) Fi Plaintiff ) IN Te OFFICE OF ; POO THE COUNTY OF TIDOLESEX v. . ) FEB 18 2021 KEITH WESTON AND ) INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL ) SERVICES CORP. ) Defendants ) C.A. NO.: 1781CV00814 DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANEL Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 51(b), the Defendants respectfully requests that the three judge panel consider the following instructions. : 1. RULES OF THE ROAD It is well established in Massachusetts that “even if a driver has the right of way under G.L. c. 89 § 8, the right of way is by no means absolute. Its possession does not absolve the driver of the duty to exercise due care. Indeed, a driver who has the right of way at an intersection may be negligent, or even foolhardy, if he asserts his right on some occasions. Possession of the right of way is only one consideration to be taken into account in determining whether a driver has performed his duty to use due care.” Canane v. Dandini, 355 Mass 72, 76 (1968). Pursuant to G.L. 90 § 17, “no person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public . . . hotwithstanding [the] establishment of a speed limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or ‘highway conditions.” See M.G.L. c. 90, gil7. ¢B0958133.1) “[T]he driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle ... If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake.” See M.G.L. c. 89, § 2.10. {8098133.1) | | “When any way has been divided into lanes} the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single laneland he shall not move from the lane . . . until he has first ascertained that such movement|can be made with safety.” See M.G.L. c. 89, § 4A. Drivers must maintain their lanes and avoid drifting or swerving into an adjoining lane or the shoulder, and drivers must not move from their respective travel lanes without first ascertaining whether it is safe to do so;ithese two directives operate independently. Commonwealth v. Larose, 483 Mass. 323 (2019). A driver may violate the marked-lanes statute either by failing to maintain the driver's intended lane of travel or by failing to ascertain the safety of a movement from that lane before executing that movement. Commonwealth v. Larose, 483 Mass. 323, 329 (2019). In no case shall a driver enter or proceed through an intersection without due regard to the safety of other persons within the intersection, regardless of what indications may be given by traffic control signals. See 720 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.06. Massachusetts law requires that “the driver of any vehicle before starting, stopping, turning from a direct line, or backing shall first see that such movement can be made in safety. If such movement cannot be made in safety or if it interferes with unduly with the normal movement or other traffic, said driver shall wait for a more favorable opportunity to make such a movement. See 720 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.06. An operator of a motor vehicle using a public highway owes a duty of ordinary care at all times to avoid placing himself or others in danger and to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid a collision. In addition, the operator owes a duty to keep a proper lookout and make reasonable observations as to traffic and other conditions. See Fitzgerald v. Packard, 317 Mass. 431, 432 (1944); Spano v. Wilson, 361 Mass. 209 (1972). The driver of a motor vehicle shall not cross or enter an intersection, which it is unable to proceed through, without stopping and thereby blocking vehicles from travelling in a free direction. A green light is no defense to blocking the intersection. The driver must wait another cycle of the signal light, if necessary. See M.G.L. c. 89, § 9.wy f ' i 1 i | THE DEFENDANTS, KEITH WESTON AND INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP., BY ITS ATTORNEYS, Aa Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852) Email: SCarroll@boyleshaughnessy.com Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800) Email: SPavao@boyleshaughnessy.com Boyle | Shaughnessy Law PC 25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 201 Braintree, MA 02184 Phone: (617) 451-2000 Fax: (617) 451-5775 DATED: 2/22/21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and/or Sup. Ct. R. 9A, I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served via e-mail on all parties or their representatives in this action as listed below this 22" day of February, 2021: Counsel for Plaintiff, Justin Urban Ernest J. Palazzolo, Jr., Esq. Richard J. Sullivan, Esq. Sullivan & Sullivan, LLP 83 Walnut Street Wellesley, MA 02481 AE Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852) Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800) Counsel for Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp. {B0958133.1)