Beaucage v. Mercer

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtHAMMOND
Citation92 N.E. 774,206 Mass. 492
PartiesBEAUCAGE v. MERCER. GILBERT v. SAME.
Decision Date19 October 1910

206 Mass. 492
92 N.E. 774

BEAUCAGE
v.
MERCER.
GILBERT
v.
SAME.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

Oct. 19, 1910.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Berkshire County; John C. Crosby, Judge.

Actions by J. H. D. Beaucage and by John A. Gilbert against William J. Mercer. Verdicts for defendant, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions sustained.


Warner & [206 Mass. 497]Barker, for plaintiffs.

James Fallon and Francis Dougherty, for defendant.


HAMMOND, J.

In dealing with these exceptions we are embarrassed by the meager report of the evidence as to the precise manner in which the accident occurred, and by the disconnected way in which the parts of the charge deemed material are reported; and we proceed to the consideration of the questions of law involved not without apprehension lest something may have been omitted which, if inserted, might have materially changed the conclusion to which we have come.

As to the general doctrine of contributory and imputable negligence the jury were instructed as follows: ‘If you should find that there was any negligence on the part of either of these plaintiffs, and that such negligence contributed to their injuries, neither of them could recover. I instruct you as * * * matter of law that if one was negligent the negligence of that plaintiff is to be imputed to the other; in other words, if you should find that Beaucage was negligent in something which he did or omitted to do, which contributed to this accident, then neither he nor Gilbert could recover, and Beaucage's negligence would be imputed to Gilbert.’

To this ruling the plaintiffs excepted.

The record recites that ‘as on several former occasions, both plaintiffs were in Beaucage's automobile in the daytime * * * taking a ride together, having agreed to share equally the expenses of the trip. The automobile, which was being kept at defendant's garage, became disabled on the Dalton Road, so called, over which street cars run half-hourly into Pittsfield and past defendant's garage.’ Whether under all the circumstances of this case the agreement that the expenses should be shared equally was sufficient in law to make the ride a joint [206 Mass. 498]enterprise (see Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 52 N. E. 1068), and if it was, whether the joint enterprise was in law stopped when the car became disabled, so that Beaucage in telephoning for assistance was acting in his sole capacity as the owner of the car, or whether in law it continued until the car was returned, or whether there was conflicting evidence, so that these were all questions for the jury, the record does not clearly show. The trial, however, seems to have proceeded upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 7 Diciembre 1949
    ...of a joint enterprise is imputable to another member, barring his right of recovery against third parties (citing Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 92 N.E. 774,138 Am.St.Rep. 401), it is not at all clear from the opinion that the court held that the negligence of a member of a joint enterp......
  • Stock v. Fife
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 25 Enero 1982
    ...of the driver, who was not present on the trip. The parties had no agreement with respect to the sharing of expenses, Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 497-498, 92 N.E. 774 (1910), the sharing of driving responsibilities, Isaacson v. Boston, Worcester & N. Y. St. Ry., 278 Mass. 378, 391, 1......
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 7 Diciembre 1949
    ...of a joint enterprise is imputable to another member, barring his right of recovery against third parties (citing Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, [326 Mich. 154] 92 N.E. 774, 138 Am.St.Rep. 401), it is not at all clear from the opinion that the court held that the negligence of a member ......
  • Kokesh v. Price, No. 20160[283].
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 16 Marzo 1917
    ...partnership or a relation akin to partnership. Consolidated Traction Co. v. Hoimark, 60 N. J. Law, 456, 38 Atl. 684;Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 92 N. E. 774,138 Am. St. Rep. 401. This joint relation may exist under various circumstances, as in case of occupants of a rowboat, Beck v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 7 Diciembre 1949
    ...of a joint enterprise is imputable to another member, barring his right of recovery against third parties (citing Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 92 N.E. 774,138 Am.St.Rep. 401), it is not at all clear from the opinion that the court held that the negligence of a member of a joint enterp......
  • Stock v. Fife
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 25 Enero 1982
    ...of the driver, who was not present on the trip. The parties had no agreement with respect to the sharing of expenses, Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 497-498, 92 N.E. 774 (1910), the sharing of driving responsibilities, Isaacson v. Boston, Worcester & N. Y. St. Ry., 278 Mass. 378, 391, 1......
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 7 Diciembre 1949
    ...of a joint enterprise is imputable to another member, barring his right of recovery against third parties (citing Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, [326 Mich. 154] 92 N.E. 774, 138 Am.St.Rep. 401), it is not at all clear from the opinion that the court held that the negligence of a member ......
  • Kokesh v. Price, No. 20160[283].
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 16 Marzo 1917
    ...partnership or a relation akin to partnership. Consolidated Traction Co. v. Hoimark, 60 N. J. Law, 456, 38 Atl. 684;Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 92 N. E. 774,138 Am. St. Rep. 401. This joint relation may exist under various circumstances, as in case of occupants of a rowboat, Beck v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT