Bank v. Satran
| Decision Date | 28 February 1929 |
| Citation | 165 N.E. 117,266 Mass. 253 |
| Parties | BANK v. SATRAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; H. P. Williams, Judge.
Action by Joseph Bank against Harry Satran. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Guest in defendant's motor vehicle can recover for injuries only if defendant's gross negligence is established.
Defendant, rounding curve at speed of 20 miles an hour, where there was snow on highway, held, as matter of law, not guilty of gross negligence as to guest injured in collision with motor bus, though automobile skidded and guest had previously warned defendant that he was driving faster than was safe, in view of the condition of the roads and the weather; striking disregard of danger and indifference to present legal duty being essential to proof of gross negligence.
Fact that automobile skidded is of itself not even evidence of negligence of driver.E. P. Benjamin, of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. I. Badger, of Boston, for defendant.
The only question argued on the bill of exceptions is whether the evidence will sustain a finding of gross negligence.
[1] The plaintiff was a guest in the motor vehicle of the defendant. He was injured but can recover only if gross negligence is established. Manning v. Simpson, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N. E. 440.
There was evidence that, in rounding a corner, the automobile skidded and brought up against a motor omnibus. A slight snow was falling. There was snow in the highway. The plaintiff and another passenger, one or more times during the ride and before the accident, had suggested to the defendant that he was driving faster than was safe in view of the condition of the roads and the weather. He had thereupon driven more slowly for a time and then increased his speed. Where the accident occurred he was moving at a speed of twenty miles an hour in driving a big, closed car around a corner, swinging into a side street, The vehicle did not overturn, but the plaintiff was, as he says, thrown from it to the street and a rear wheel was broken off as it collided with the omnibus.
Such evidence, it is admitted, is abundant to justify a finding that the defendant drove carelessly; but it is contended, that it does not show the striking disregard of the danger of probable injury, the indifference to present legal duty, which is essential to the proof of gross negligence. Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 121 N. E. 505, 4 A. L. R. 1185.
[2][3] The contention is sound. The passengers earlier had been alarmed at the speed, but that is not conclusive that it was unsafe. Twenty miles per hour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siesseger v. Puth
...Judges concur.” See also Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216, 234 N. W. 581;Bertelli v. Tronconi, 264 Mass. 235, 162 N. E. 307;Bank v. Satran, 266 Mass. 253, 165 N. E. 117;McKenna v. Smith (Mass.) 175 N. E. 474. In Bank v. Satran, 266 Mass. 253, 165 N. E. 117, 118, the court had under considera......
-
Curtis v. Ficken
... ... ipsa loquitur is applicable. (Arnold v. Brereton, ... 261 Mass. 238, 158 N.E. 671; Bank v. Satran, 266 ... Mass. 253, 165 N.E. 117; Barret v. Caddo Transfer & W ... Co., 165 La. 1075, 58 A. L. R. 261, 116 So. 563; ... Bartlett v ... ...
-
Siesseger v. Puth
...307; Bank v. Satran, (Mass.) 266 Mass. 253, 165 N.E. 117; McKenna v. Smith, (Mass.) 275 Mass. 149, 175 N.E. 474. In Bank v. Satran, (Mass.) 266 Mass. 253, 165 N.E. 117, court had under consideration an action brought by a guest. It quotes from a statement of the facts, as follows: "There wa......
-
Cook v. Cole
...that the defendant told the plaintiff that he would be ‘all right.’ See Bertelli v. Tronconi, 264 Mass. 285, 162 N. E. 307;Bank v. Satran, 266 Mass. 253, 165 N. E. 117. As there was no evidence that the road was more than ‘very slightly down grade,’ the testimony that the defendant disconne......