George Paradis v. Barnard Greenberg

The defendant Greenbergs motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict, on the grounds that there was no evidence of his negligence while that of Paradis was conclusively shown were rightly denied. It was findable that Paradis slowed down, shifted into second and began to ease gradually over the middle line of the road far enough away from the point of impact so that Greenberg should have seen him do so in time to have avoided the accident. The jury were not compelled to accept Greenbergs story as to Paradis sudden turn. They could find on Greenbergs own testimony that he saw the truck eight or nine hundred feet away and continually thereafter up to the moment of impact so that Paradis actions gave ample warning of his intent to cross the intersection and enter Route 16B. They could also believe that Greenberg in failing to keep a proper lookout and to slow down created the emergency which he claims existed and hence deny him the benefit of the emergency doctrine. Pickard v. Morris, 91 N.H. 65, 69. Considering all the circumstances including the fact that Paradis was almost across the intersection and was entering Route 16B when he was hit we believe the issue of Greenbergs negligence was properly submitted.