Neal v. Bowes

Defendant was operating a motor vehicle which struck and injured the plaintiff, Donald 0. Neal, who instituted this action for compensation. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff asserts that the justice below erred:

1. In refusing to grant plaintiff’s motion for a new trial;

2. In instructing the jury as follows:(a) That in order to find for the Plaintiff the Defendant’s negligence must have been the sole proximate cause of the accident;(b) That it was the duty of the Plaintiff as a pedestrian to look and see what there was to be seen.

Plaintiff…