Dean v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Citation: 217 Mass. 495,105 N.E. 616
• Parties: DEAN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases). HALL v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 20 May 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

217 Mass. 495

105 N.E. 616

DEAN

v.BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. (two cases).

HALL

v.BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

May 20, 1914.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Charles U. Bell, Judge.

Actions by Anna L. Dean, by Charles R. Dean, and by Susan A. Hall against the Boston Elevated Railway Company. Verdicts were directed for defendant in each case, and plaintiffs excepted. Exceptions overruled.

1. STREET RAILROADS (s 112*)-COLLISIONS-ACTIONS-BURDEN OF PROOF.

In an action for injuries received in a collision between an automobile and an electric car, defendant has the burden of proving that the automobile was not registered as required by law at the time of the accident.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. ss 227, 228; Dec. Dig. s 112.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

2. LICENSES (s 39*)-RIGHTS OF UNREGISTERED PERSONS.

Where the statute provided that all registrations of automobiles made prior to August 1, 1907, should expire on that date, and that thereafter registrations should expire on January 1st of each year, proof by public records that plaintiff's automobile was registered August 22, 1907, and April 22, 1908, warrants a ruling as a matter of law that during the interim between the beginning of the year 1908 and April 22d the machine was not registered.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Licenses, Cent. Dig. ss 76-78; Dec. Dig. s 39.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

3. HIGHWAYS (s 169*)-ACCIDENTS-UNLICENSED AUTOMOBILE.

Occupants of an automobile which has not been registered according to law are trespassers on the highway, and have no rights against other travelers, except to be protected from reckless or wanton injury.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. s 458; Dec. Dig. s 169.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

4. STREET RAILROADS (s 104*)-COLLISIONS-ACTIONS-WANTON INJURY.

The mere fact that the motorman in charge of an electric car did not see plaintiff's automobile as soon as he might have seen it, and did not stop his car as soon as it might have been stopped, does not show that he was guilty of wanton negligence, warranting a recovery by plaintiffs, who were trespassers on the highway, because their machine was not registered.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. s 220; Dec. Dig. s 104.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

J. W. Cummings, of Fall River, for plaintiffs Dean.

F. S. Hall, of Taunton, for plaintiff Hall.

Frank W. Knowlton, of Boston, and Arthur J. Santry, of Roxbury, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

These are actions of tort arising out of a collision between an automobile and an electric car. One important question at the trial was whether the automobile was registered as required by law. The only evidence bearing upon that point was this: The plaintiff Charles R. Dean testified that he was the owner of the automobile, whose identity was established by the manufacturer's number, and that it was the only car he owned or registered in the years 1907 and 1908, the accident having occurred in January, 1908, and that he was unable to find his registration certificates. The law in force at the time, St. 1907, c. 580, provided that all registrations made prior to August 1, 1907, should expire on that date and that thereafter all registrations should expire on January 1st of each year. The defendant called a clerk from the Massachusetts Highway Commission, the board having charge at that time of automobile registration, who testified that he had in court the records of that board so far as they related to Charles R. Dean for the years 1907 and 1908. He produced a record of registration issued on August 22, 1907, for the car concerned in the accident. By operation of law this registration expired on January 1, 1908. The witness then was asked to produce ‘the book for 1908,’ and the record states ‘witness procures book.’ The records for 1908, as testified to by the witness apparently with the record book before him, showed an application by Charles R. Dean filed on April 22d, and certificate of registration issued May 1st, and that there was no application or registration by Charles R. Dean earlier than that date in 1908. The record of the May 1st registration was read. It was the same in description of machine and owner as that of 1907. No question as to identity was raised. Later it was testified by the assistant secretary of the Massachusetts Highway Commission that the original records for 1908 were in court. There was no cross-examination of consequence, except a single question: ‘You have looked through the records and you say your examinations of the record do not disclose any other registration?’ to which the answer was, ‘Yes, sir.’ No evidence was introduced tending in any way to affect the accuracy of the records. Although they were in court, the exceptions fail to reveal that any examination was made of them tending to show their incorrectness in any respect or to indicate that the witnesses' testimony was in any particular incorrect. It is plain that if a registration certificate was issued on May 1, 1908, on the same automobile registered in Mr. Dean's name the previous year, it must have remained unregistered from January 1 to May 1, 1908, if his testimony was true to the effect that he was the owner of the automobile continuously. Indeed, apart from this it is hardly conceivable on all the evidence that this was not the fact.

[1][2] Under these circumstances a ruling was required that the automobile was unregistered at the time of the accident. The burden of proving this fact was on the defendant. Doherty v. Ayer, 197 Mass. 241, 83 N. E. 677,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 816, 125 Am. St. Rep. 355;Conroy v. Mather, 217 Mass. 91, 104 N. E. 487. But it was proved by public records which were unimpeached in any degree. In substance these showed naked and undisputed facts. The records were in court and if in any respect the...