Adamian v. Messerlian

• Decision Date: 01 November 1935
• Citation: 292 Mass. 275,198 N.E. 166
• Parties: ADAMIAN v. MESSERLIAN. MARTIN v. SAME (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

292 Mass. 275

198 N.E. 166

ADAMIAN v. MESSERLIAN.

MARTIN v. SAME (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

November 1, 1935

Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; Collins, Judge.

Separate actions of tort by Herand Adamian, Aushken Martin, and Victoria Martin against Kosrof Messerlian. On report from the Superior Court, after verdicts for plaintiffs in sums of $6,350, $150, and $850 had been recorded, subject to leave reserved, and verdict had been ordered for defendant in each action.

Judgment for defendant.

J Clark, Jr., of Worcester, for plaintiffs.

C. C Milton, of Worcester, for defendant.

RUGG Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs in these three actions of tort were guests in an automobile driven by the defendant. After verdicts for the plaintiffs the trial judge, under leave reserved, ordered entered a verdict for the defendant in each case. The sole question presented is whether the evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiffs warranted a finding of gross negligence on the part of the defendant as the cause of their injuries.

There was evidence tending to show these facts: The accident happened about half past eleven o'clock on the night of December 31, 1929. The streets were particularly slippery and icy caused by rain or mist freezing on the ground. The defendant, having driven up the hill on Highland street, in Worcester, and having reached the top began descending on the westerly side of the hill. The street was twenty-six feet eight inches wide, and the distance from the top of the hill to the place of the accident was nine hundred and eighty feet; there were three intersecting streets on each side in that distance. The automobile had no chains on the wheels. The street at this point was thickly settled. There was one other automobile going in the same direction which the defendant passed or tried to pass. Another automobile was coming on an intersecting street, but there is no evidence that it came upon Highland street. There was evidence that the speed of the defendant's automobile was at the rate of forty-five to fifty miles an hour. Two of the plaintiffs protested to the defendant as to his speed. The defendant turned to look at one protestant sitting on the back seat. The automobile began to skid and the defendant lost control of it at the top of the hill, and it continued to skid over the road and out of control. Notwithstanding that the defendant thought he did everything to regain control, it finally crashed into a tree on the right-hand side of the street. The guests were injured. There was also evidence that the automobile did not begin to skid until it had gone a considerable distance down the hill, and that the defendant attempted to check his speed by the use of his brake. There was no collision with any vehicle.

There was no error in ordering the entry of verdicts in favor of the defendant. The skidding of the automobile in the circumstances disclosed was of itself no evidence of negligence. Lonergan v. American Railway Express Co., 250 Mass. 30, 35, 144 N.E. 756. There was evidence from which it might have been found that the defendant was driving at a greater speed than was reasonable and proper. G L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 90, § 17. This with all the other factors, while evidence tending to show negligence, does not warrant a...