Campbell v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 24 October 1914 |
| Citation | 106 N.E. 599,219 Mass. 160 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. ARNOLD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Clarence W. Rowley and Daniel J. Kiley, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Wm. J Coughlan and Daniel R. Coughlan, both of Abington, for defendant.
The undisputed evidence showed that on a May afternoon the defendant entertained at his summer cottage two women and two men as his guests. The women urged him to take them out in his automobile, but he did not want them to go and during most of the afternoon refused to yield to their request. They 'kept teasing' him and did 'quite a little coaxing' and finally he said in substance: 'Well, you can go if you want to, but don't be gone long;' at the same time taking from his pocket and throwing down the key with which to unlock the switch of his automobile. A man named Thompson was one of the guests. He had been employed by the firm of which the defendant was a member until a day or two before the occasion in question, and held a chauffeur's license and knew how to operate the defendant's automobile. The defendant testified that he produced the keys and, throwing them down, said: 'There go on and go, but I don't want you to go at that;' that he supposed he knew that Thompson was going to drive the car and thought he would 'drive those girls around a little way and bring them back.' He denied that Thompson went on any mission of his or was sent by him to take the women out for a ride. The key was used and Thompson prepared the automobile, which was near by, for starting and drove off on a pleasure ride with the woman in the defendant's presence. There was ample evidence of carelessness on the part of Thompson in driving the car, whereby injury to the plaintiff resulted.
If the defendant merely lent his automobile to Thompson or the women for their own pleasure or business, or permitted them to use it for a purpose in whihc he had no interest, plainly he could not be held liable for any injury resulting from carelessness in its operation. Herlihy v Smith, 116 Mass. 265. The defendant can be held liable only on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Thompson was acting as the defendant's agent at the time. Although the case is close to the line, there are circumstances enough to require the submission of that question to the jury. The women were the guests of the defendant at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re McDermott
...the law under the name of master and servant, except that to be an employee, as distinguished from a servant generally (Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass. 160, 106 N. E. 599), one must serve under a contract of hire (Humphrey's Case, 227 Mass. 166, 116 N. E. 412, L. R. A. 1918F, 193;Cameron v. S......
-
McDonough v. Vozzela
...Ann. Cas. 1914A, 907;Hopwood v. Pokrass, 219 Mass. 263, 106 N. E. 997;Heywood v. Ogasapian, 224 Mass. 203, 112 N. E. 619;Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass. 160, 106 N. E. 599;Ouimette v. Harris, 219 Mass. 466, 107 N. E. 435;Barney v. Magenis, 241 Mass. 268, 135 N. E. 142; Conant v. Constantin, 2......
-
Thomas J. McDermott's Case
... ... except that to be an employee, as distinguished from a ... servant generally (Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass ... 160), one must serve under a contract of hire. Humphrey's ... Case, 227 Mass. 166 ... Cameron v. State Theatre Co ... 256 ... ...
-
Ballou v. Fitzpatrick
...L. R. A. (N. S.) 701;Popkin v. Goldman, 266 Mass. 531, 536, 165 N. E. 655;Harlow v. Sinman, 241 Mass. 462, 135 N. E. 553;Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass. 160, 106 N. E. 599;Nash v. Lang, 268 Mass. 407, 410, 167 N. E. 762;Groce v. First National Stores, Inc., 268 Mass. 210, 213, 167 N. E. 308;G......