The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1830-01-13
LAW OF THE ROAD.

IL
tried, on appeal from the judgment of Justice
at the present term of the Court of Common
Pleas, for damages sustained by the plaintiff in
passing the team of the defendant on the public
highway in the town of Groton 1t appeared
IN evidence that three loaded teams were pass
ing up hill, one of which was some rods ahead
OF the other two, and the defendants the hind
most of the three. Finding his team inclined
to travel faster than that next ahead, it was
agreed that he should pass by it, which he was
doing when the cause of this action arose. In
passing, he took the left hand side of the road
at which time the chaise of the plaintiff came
In sight, about Is rods ahead. He was driving
at the rate of ten miles an hour, and, without
Stacking his pace, attempted to pass the teams
situated as above stated, in doing which, the
wheel OF the chaise came in contact with that
OF the defendants team with such force that il
bent the axletree, and broke nearly every spoke
In the wheel. 1t was also proved that if the
plaintiff had driven moderately and carefully,
ne might have passed safely by. The plaintiff
claimed damages, on the ground that he was
entitled to one half, or sufficient portion, of
the right hand side of the road, to pass without
danger, driving at his accustomed rate The
Judge charged the jury, that, although the law
required persons, in passing, to take the right
hand side of the road, it did not necessarily re-
| quire them always to be there. That if a team
was rightfully on the left of the road, it was
entitled TO reasonable time to cross over TO
the other side. That, even if it was wrongful.
ly there, it did not necessarily entitle a man to
damages, who should rashy and imprudsntly
drive afoul of it, when there was room for him
to pass safely, by exercising ordinary care, but
that the owner would be liable to indictment
Tor nuisance at common law In the pres
ent case they would first inquire whether there
was room for the chase to have passed, and
then, it they were satisfied that the plaintiff
exercised ordinary care and discretion in at.
tempting to pass, they would render verdict
IN his favor; but if, on the other hand, the
damage he sustained was in consequence of
his own rashness and imprudence, the defend
ant was not responsible for his wrong, and was
entitled to verdict. The jury, after short
consultation, returned a verdict for the defend.
ant.
ACTION FOR SANDER.
Leland VS.. Buckiin. The parties to this suit
were physicians. There were six counts
in the declaration, all referring to the same
conversation of the defendant, in which il was
set forth in various forms that certain medic cine,
prepared by DR.. Leland for Mrs Stone, was
dp Pt Prf min nv, ,h; 81, a.
tiff had suffered greatly in his reputation and
practise.
1t resulted from the evidence that DR.. Le-
land had patient, named Stone, laboring I'M
der chronic complaint, and that, with his as
sent, DR.. Bucklin was called 10 consultation
on the case. The Emulsion of Balsam Copaivi
was agreed upon as the most suitable medicine,
and Dr. Leland, as attending physician, was to
prepare it. The next day he called and left a
phial of medicine with directions for taking it.
1t was accordingly taken, but failed of produc-
ing the desired effect. A few days after, Mrs.
Stone, meeting DR.. Bucklin, the medicine was
shewn to him, when, on examination, he said
that the medicine was wrong, and not such as
was agreed upon, and inquired if she had not
mistaken the phal. Being told that she had
not, DR. b. said she had better say nothing
about it, that he should see Dr. Leland in few
days, and that he probably could give salts
factory explanation. 1t was ATTEMPTED to he
shewn that DR.. Bucklin had spoken of the cir
cumstance elsewhere, in a manner to affect the
plaintiff njuriously. This attempt failed, ex-
| rant lbat 20 ,,,as rrayoJ I'll, n n 8,
mentioned the circumstance in one family.
where patient inquired of him respecting il
! 1t was shewn that DIR. L. had admitted thai the
medicine administered was ono different in its
character from the one agreed upon, and that
he justified the substitution, on the ground of
his having, as the attending physician, the bes,
knowledge of the case. On this state of facts
the court charged the jury that communications
between physician and his patients must me-
cessary be free and unrestricted that IL ,,0s
the claty of DR.. b., as consulting physician to
apprise Mrs. S. of the nature of the medicine
she had been taking, and of his opinion of it ;
that, If he did this merely for the benefit of the
patient, and without any malicious intent, it
was not actionable /; that, under such crcum.
stances, although the words spoken might in.
juriously affect the plaintiff, malice was moi
thence necessarily to be inferred, but must be
proved to their satisfaction in some other man
ner The jury, after few minutes consulta
ton, returned verdict for the defendant.
!
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS,
Il