La Fucci v. Palladino

Decision Date14 February 1934
Citation189 N.E. 111,285 Mass. 240
PartiesLA FUCCI v. PALLADINO. ZIGARI v. SAME.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Municipal Court, Suffolk County; James H. Devlin, Judge.

Separate actions of tort by Anthony La Fucci and Andrew Zigari against Domenic Palladino in the Municipal Court of the city of Boston. From orders by the Appellate Division dismissing reports finding for the defendant in each action, plaintiffs appeal.

Orders dismissing reports reversed.

W. S. Kinney, of Boston, for plaintiffs.

E. J. Sullivan, of Boston, for defendant.

PIERCE, Justice.

These two actions for personal injuries, tried together, are before this court on appeals from final decisions of the Appellate Division of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. The reports of the trial judge to the Appellate Division are, in substance, as follows: The second count of the plaintiff's declaration in each action alleged, the first count being waived, that ‘on or about the twenty-fifth day of February, 1932, the defendant, his agent or servant, operated a motor vehicle on a public highway in the city of Cambridge, in our County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which vehicle was illegally registered and known to be illegally registered by the defendant, and while upon said way, the said vehicle caused the plaintiff personal injuries, and he suffered great pain both in body and mind and was put to great expense for medicines, medical attendance and care and was deprived of engaging in his work for a long period of time. All to his great damage.’ The answer in each action is a general denial, contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and a further answer that on the occasion of the alleged injury the automobile was not then being operated by the servant or agent of the defendant or in connection with his business or interest, nor was it then being operated by and under the control of a person for whose conduct the defendant was personally and legally responsible.

At the trial there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff in each action was a passenger in a Ford truck which had been illegally registered by the defendant in his own name, the truck being owned by the defendant's father and operated by the defendant's brother with the defendant's permission and consent; and that the truck came into a collision with another automobile at the junction of Brookline Street and Memorial Drive, in Cambridge, as the result of which the plaintiff suffered personal injuries. At the close of the trial and before the final arguments each plaintiff made the following request for rulings: (1) ‘The registration of the truck in this case by Domenic Palladino in his own name, he not being the owner thereof and having no legal interest therein, was an illegal registration thereof. G. L. c. 90, § 22.’ This request was allowed by the judge. Each plaintiff made the requests numbered 2 and 3 which follow: (2) ‘That Domenic Palladino, by illegally registering the truck in this case in his own name, he not being the owner thereof nor having any legal interest therein thereby created a nuisance and he is legally responsible to the plaintiff for the personal injuries which the plaintiff sustained resulting from the operation of the truck, the plaintiff [in each case] having no knowledge nor reasonable cause to know that said truck was illegally registered. St. 1929, c. 180, Balian v. Ogassin, 277 Mass. 525, 179 N. E. 232, 78 A. L. R. 1021.’ (3) ‘The truck having been illegally registered by Domenic Palladino in his own name as owner he thereby furnished the means and facilities for the unlawful operation of the car and thereby aided and abetted in the creation of a nuisance and he is liable for the injuries resulting therefrom. McDonald v. Dundon, 242 Mass. at page 233, 136 N. E. 264, 26 A. L. R. 1243.’ The trial judge denied...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Capano v. Melchionno
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 1 Abril 1937
    ...326;Pawloski v. Hess, 253 Mass. 478, 149 N.E. 122;Balian v. Ogassin, 277 Mass. 525, 530, 179 N.E. 232, 78 A.L.R. 1021;LaFucci v. Palladino, 285 Mass. 240, 189 N.E. 111;Caccavo v. Kearney, 286 Mass. 480, 484, 190 N.E. 817. As already pointed out, the evidence would have warranted a finding t......
  • Gallagher v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1935
    ... ... Balian v ... Ogassin, 277 Mass. 525, 530, 531, 179 N.E. 232, 78 ... A.L.R. 1021; LaFucci v. Palladino ... ...
  • McKenna v. Andreassi
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 1935
    ... ... Mass. 483, 488, 174 N.E. 118; Balian v. Ogassin, 277 ... Mass. 525, 530, 179 N.E. 232, 78 A.L.R. 1021; LaFucci v ... Palladino, 285 Mass. 240, 243, 189 N.E. 111. A ruling of ... the trial judge at the request of the plaintiff, in ... substance, that due care on the part of ... ...
  • Stowe v. Mason
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1935
    ... ... distance away) was not a cause. The case differs from cases ... such as La Fucci v. Palladino, 285 Mass. 240, 189 ... N.E. 111, where the unlawful conduct consists in operating an ... unregistered automobile upon the public ... ...
  • 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