D'Arcangelo v. Tartar
| Decision Date | 08 December 1928 |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 87,265 Mass. 350 |
| Parties | D'ARCANGELO v. TARTAR. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division; J. A. Bennett, Special Judge.
Action by Amabile D'Arcangelo against Nicholas Tartar, doing business as the Foley Cab Company. The judge of the municipal court rendered a decision for plaintiff, and reported the case, and, from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report, defendant appeals. Affirmed.F. W. Griffin, of Lynn, for defendant.
This is an action of tort in which the plaintiff seeks to recover property damages resulting from an automobile accident. It could have been found that the plaintiff was driving his automobile on Washington street, in Boston, at about 12:15 a. m. on December 6, 1926, and, when about two hundred feet from Causeway street, was run into by a car belonging to the defendant bearing the Massachusetts registration number 65912, marked Cab No. 6, with the name Foley Cab Company on the side of the machine and registered in the name of the defendant; that the plaintiff was travelling fifteen or twenty miles an hour close to a snow bank on his right hand side of the street; that the defendant's car was coming from the opposite direction at the rate of twenty-five to thirty miles an hour, travelling at the left of the center of the street in the direction in which it was going; that the defendant's car collided with the left rear of the plaintiff's automobile; that the plaintiff obtained the name of Leo A. Daniels, who was supposed to be the driver of the defendant's automobile; and there was no one in the defendant's automobile at the time of the accident except the driver.
The defendant, called by the plaintiff, testified that he operated ten cars and owned the one bearing registration number 65912; that Leo A. Daniels was employed by him, his hours of employment being from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m.; that he was not working for the defendant on the night of the accident and the witness knew of no accident in which the car referred to was involved on or about December 6, 1926; that he interviewed all his drivers and none of them knew of such an accident.
Leo A. Daniels, called by the plaintiff, testified that he worked for the defendant but was not driving the car in question on the night of the accident, he knew nothing about it and never saw the plaintiff until he came into court to testify. Other witnesses were called who identified the witness Leo A. Daniels as the driver of the defendant's car at the time of the accident.
The judge of the municipal court ruled that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the operator of the defendant's automobile was working for the defendant at the time of the accident, and denied a request for ruling that there was no evidence that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at that time. He found for the plaintiff and reported the case. From the order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report the defendant appealed.
[1][2] The case at bar in many of its features, is similar to Welch v. Checker Taxi Co. (1928) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schleifstein v. Greenstein
...attempts may be the basis for permissible inferences, but they do not affirmatively prove the ultimate issue. D'Arcangelo v. Tartar, 265 Mass. 350, 352, 164 N.E. 87 (1928). Sheehan v. Goriansky, 317 Mass. 10, 16-17, 56 N.E.2d 883 (1944). Hillery v. Hillery, 342 Mass. 371, 375, 173 N.E.2d 26......
-
Credit Serv. Corp. v. Barker
...erection of an entire case by mere inference without other evidence. Zandan v. Radner, 242 Mass. 503, 505, 136 N.E. 387;D'Arcangelo v. Tartar, 265 Mass. 350, 164 N.E. 87;Laidlaw v. Vose, 265 Mass. 500, 505, 506, 164 N.E. 388;Atlas v. Silsbury-Gamble Motors Co., 278 Mass. 279, 283, 180 N.E. ......
-
City of Boston v. Santosuosso
...Such false testimony is in the nature of an admission from which with other evidence guilt or liability may be inferred. D'Arcangelo v. Tartar, 265 Mass. 350 , 352. also Commonwealth v. Trefethen, 157 Mass. 180, 199. There is nothing in the report of material facts indicating that the trial......
-
Credit Service Corp. v. Barker
...foundation for the erection of an entire case by mere inference without other evidence. Zandan v. Radner, 242 Mass. 503 , 505. D'Arcangelo v. Tartar, 265 Mass. 350 Laidlaw v. Vose, 265 Mass. 500 , 505, 506. Atlas v. Silsbury-Gamble Motors Co. 278 Mass. 279 , 283. Boston v. Santosuosso, 307 ......