Souza v. United Electric Railways Co.

I am obliged to dissent from the foregoing opinion because I am convinced that the trial justice did not err when he denied defendant’s motion for a new trial.

This case has been before this court twice: 49 R. I. 430; 51 R. I. 124. In the first opinion we held that plaintiff’s evidence was such that a jury might find that the motorman was guilty of negligence and that the trial justice erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. In the second opinion we said: “As bearing upon the question of negligence and contributory negligence, the parties made considerable of an issue of the question…