Comeau v. Hebert
| Decision Date | 07 June 1967 |
| Citation | 227 N.E.2d 475,352 Mass. 634 |
| Parties | Louis COMEAU v. Edgar I. HEBERT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Charles R. Desmarais, New Bedford, for plaintiff.
Benjamin Horvitz, Fall River, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
In this action of tort the court under leave reserved entered a verdict for the defendant after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case is here on the plaintiff's bill of exceptions. The plaintiff received personal injuries as a result of being struck by a car driven by the defendant. At the time, the plaintiff, a carpenter in the employ of Sagamore Manufacturing Company in Fall River, was walking from one of its shops to another. The defendant, employed by the same company as an overseer, had completed his work for the day and was on his way home. The defendant had entered his car which was parked, and testified at the trial that he was blinded by the sun and did not see the plaintiff until after he had struck him, having driven no more than twenty feet, although 'he knew that there were several cars and people likely to be in the area.' The record is not clear whether the site of the accident was on premises belonging to the employer although it was located between two of its mills. The parties agreed that the employer carried workmen's compensation insurance, that the plaintiff collected compensation payments for his injury, that he did not reserve his common law rights in accordance with G.L. c. 152, § 24, and that they were employed by Sagamore at the time of the accident. The issue presented by the bill of exceptions is whether the plaintiff and the defendant were fellow employees acting in the course of their common employment at the time of the accident.
'If at the time the injuries were received the parties were engaged in the course of their common employment, the plaintiff cannot maintain this action but must rely upon his remedies under the workmen's compensation act.' Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633, 635, 59 N.E.2d 252, and cases cited; Wechsler v. Liner, 328 Mass. 152, 153, 102 N.E.2d 92. See G.L. c. 152, § 15. It is undisputed that the plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment. The defendant, according to the bill of exceptions, 'was through work for about 15 minutes before the accident occurred and at the time of the accident was on his way home and was not engaged in any work on behalf of his employer.' These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...if the defendant insurer is to be treated as a negligent third party, it may be held to liability at common law. See Comeau v. Hebert (1967), 352 Mass. 634, 227 N.E.2d 475. The case at bar, accordingly, presents the question whether the insurer is 'some person other than the insured' under ......
-
Emory v. Miller
...summary judgment in this forum is appropriate. Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306, 366 N.E.2d 1245 (1977); Comeau v. Hebert, 352 Mass. 634, 635, 227 N.E.2d 475 (1967); Frassa v. Caulfield, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 105, 107, 491 N.E.2d 657, rev. denied, 398 Mass. 1101, 495 N.E.2d 310 (1986). C......
-
Mathias v. Beatrice Foods Co.
...if at all, whether against the company or against Maione and Agathos as fellow employees of the plaintiff. See Comeau v. Hebert, 352 Mass. 634, 635, 227 N.E.2d 475 (1967); Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 306, 366 N.E.2d 1245 (1977); Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 381 Mass. 545, 547-550, 413......
-
Frassa v. Caulfield
...Frassa's death? If so, the plaintiff is barred from recovery against Caulfield under the fellow employee rule. Comeau v. Hebert, 352 Mass. 634, 635, 227 N.E.2d 475 (1967). Saharceski v. Marcure, supra, 373 Mass. at 306, 366 N.E.2d 1245. General principles in this regard are well established......