Opinion ID: 2262524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: third collision

Text: Mrs. George and her passenger arrived in Auburn in the early evening. It was dark, still snowing, and roads were icy and snow-covered. After passing the base of Court Street hill Mrs. George decided not to attempt driving any further up the incline because of apparent snarled traffic above. She stopped and then proceeded to back down a few feet, parking between two parked automobiles on the right hand side of Court just above James Street. [3] Some few minutes elapsed in which Mrs. George and her passenger remained in the car talking over what to do next during which time a few vehicles proceeded down the hill and passed them. Then their attention was drawn to a car about halfway down the hill coming directly toward them. It was a Chevrolet operated by the Defendant Louis Campbell and it struck Mrs. George's Chrysler a glancing blow on the left rear side. Defendant Campbell's testimony indicates that he proceeded out onto Court Street from Highland Avenue at least 5 miles per hour. [4] As he crossed Court to the right hand lane his Chevrolet began to side-slip and he lost control. He further testified that despite attempting corrective measures in a continuous effort to regain control he struck Mrs. George's Chrysler on the left rear with his left front at a speed of about 15 miles per hour. [5] Defendant Campbell admitted having had two glasses of beer along with a hamburger an hour or more before the collision. [6] During his charge to the jury the Presiding Justice gave the jury explanations of the doctrines of unavoidable accident and sudden emergency. When the charge to the jury had been completed and before the jury had retired, Plaintiffs' attorney said to the Court: For the record, I would just object to the charge on unavoidable accident and on the sudden emergency doctrine. M.R.C.P., Rule 51(b) defines the procedure which must be followed before a party may assign as error a portion of a Justice's instruction to the jury. . . . No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury. Here there was a complete absence of any statement to the Justice of Plaintiffs' grounds for objection which would have given the Justice opportunity to have corrected his error, if he found there had been error. There was no attempt to inform the Justice whether counsel's objection was to the giving of the instructions as to one, two or all of Plaintiffs' claims against the three Defendants or whether he objected only to some particular language used. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet a condition precedent to their right to assign complaints concerning the Justice's charge as error on appeal. State v. Collins, Me., 297 A.2d 620 (1972). Our examination of the record as it relates to these instructions will be confined to a determination of whether the Justice's instructions contained seriously prejudicial errors.