Bagley v. Burkholder
Citation | 337 Mass. 246,149 N.E.2d 143 |
Parties | John Francis BAGLEY v. Ralph J. BURKHOLDER. |
Decision Date | 04 April 1958 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Joseph Schneider and Norman M. Goldberg, for plaintiff, submitted a brief.
Salvatore F. Stramondo, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.
The plaintiff on January 14, 1955, was a truck driver employed by Peerless Motor Lines (hereinafter called Peerless). The defendant was employed by Hartmann, Inc., as a driver. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were on the premises of a truck terminal engaged in the business of their respective employers. At the terminal, Peerless then had a trailer backed up to a loading platform with no tractor attached.
The jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant's bill of exceptions presents only the question whether the trial judge should have allowed the defendant's motion, seasonably presented, for a directed verdict.
1. There was here no evidence which would warrant a finding of gross negligence, which must be based on conduct of the defendant amounting to an 'aggravated degree of culpability.' See Lamb v. Russell, 294 Mass. 203, 205, 1 N.E.2d 39; Polcari v. Cardello, 316 Mass. 421, 423, 55 N.E.2d 681; Rosario v. Vasconcellos, 330 Mass. 170, 172-173, 112 N.E.2d 243; Belina v. Pelczarski, 333 Mass. 730, 733, 133 N.E.2d 215; Sutherland v. Seardino, 334 Mass. 178, 182, 134 N.E.2d 444. Compare Niland v. Cox, 336 Mass. ----, 142 N.E.2d 895; Doherty v. Spano, 336 Mass. ----, 146 N.E.2d 671. Recovery can be had here only if the evidence warranted the jury in finding that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was such as would permit the plaintiff to recover upon a showing of ordinary negligence. We consider the case upon the assumption that the evidence of the defendant's disregard of the plaintiff's instruction, 'Hold it,' would have warranted a finding of ordinary negligence.
2. Upon the Massachusetts authorities, when A enters upon a gratuitous undertaking for the benefit of B, the duty of care which A owes to B is only the duty to refrain from gross negligence. Massaletti v. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487, 508-510, 118 N.E. 168, L.R.A.1918C, 264; Ruel v. Langelier, 299 Mass. 240, 242, 12 N.E.2d 735; Donahue v. Kelley, 306 Mass. 511, 513-514, 29 N.E.2d 10; Welts v. Caldwell, 331 Mass. 499, 500-501, 120 N.E.2d 280. However, B, the recipient of the benefit, owes to A the duty of exercising ordinary care for A's safety. See Taylor v. Goldstein, 329 Mass. 161, 165, 107 N.E.2d 14, and cases cited.
There is plainly no merit to the present plaintiff's contention that he was conferring a benefit upon the defendant by helping to disengage the tractor. The evidence shows that the defendant was engaged in doing an act which 'was no part of the employment of the defendant.' It was solely for the benefit of the plaintiff that the defendant attached Hartmann, Inc.'s tractor to Peerless's trailer and conducted the moving operation. That operation had not finished and was still in process. The attachment, originally undertaken to assist the plaintiff, continued to be for the plaintiff's benefit, and not for the benefit of the defendant until safe disengagement of the vehicles had been completed. See Ruel v. Langelier, 299 Mass. 240, 242, 12 N.E.2d 735.
Cases like Taylor v. Goldstein, 329 Mass. 161, 165, 107 N.E.2d 14, where a passenger in a vehicle was conferring a benefit upon the driver wanting in ordinary care, or where a plaintiff was conferring a benefit upon a defendant guilty of ordinary negligence, are to be distinguished. See Thomas v. Fritz, 318 Mass. 622, 624-625, 63...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Labree v. Major
...negligence. This rule, of judicial origin, has been applied to cases where guests in automobiles sue their hosts. Bagley v. Burkholder, 337 Mass. 246, 149 N.E.2d 143 (1958); Massaletti v. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487, 118 N.E. 168 (1917). The principle, though, is not limited to the operation of ......
-
Beaulieu v. Beaulieu
...with mere companionship or social intercourse. See, Taylor v. Goldstein, 1952, 329 Mass. 161, 107 N.E.2d 14; Bagley v. Burkholder, 1958, 337 Mass. 246, 149 N.E.2d 143. In Maine, liability is imposed in the host-guest situation. One of the reasons for this State policy is that the wrongdoer ......
-
Gagne v. Berry, 5956
...for the benefit of B, the duty of care which A owes to B is only the duty to refrain from gross negligence.' Bagley v. Burkholder, 337 Mass. 246, 248, 149 N.E.2d 143, 145 (1958); Massaletti v. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487, 118 N.E. 168 (1917). It gives no evidence of having been inspired by consi......
-
Pandiscio v. Bowen
...104 N.E.2d 424; Taylor v. Goldstein, 329 Mass. 161, 163-165, 107 N.E.2d 14, where the cases are collected. Cf. Bagley v. Burkholder, 337 Mass. 246, 248-249, 149 N.E.2d 143 (recipient of benefits injured). Nevertheless, a member of a family or household group or group of acquaintances render......