Court Opinion

ID: 9686859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:09:26.533266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.520480
License: Public Domain

Gordon, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The trial judge informed the jury that, "If you find that the pedestrian was crossing the highway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk, then it became the duty of the operator of the automobile to yield the right of way to him.” (Em*668phasis added.) This was an instruction conditioned on the jury’s finding a crosswalk, and in that sense it was superfluous under the facts which were before the jury.
In my opinion, such error as occurred in the judge’s instructions is not of sufficient moment as to require a new trial. The majority of the court deems that the judge’s reference to crosswalks prejudicially tainted the entire proceedings ; this is the point on which I disagree. My examination of this record persuades me that the trial was a fair one, the result was reasonable, and the error in the judge’s instruction was innocuous.
Mr. Justice Dieterich joins in this dissent.