Gaboury v. Tisdell
| Decision Date | 15 October 1927 |
| Parties | GABOURY et al. v. TISDELL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Charles H. Donahue, Judge.
Action of tort by Emma Gaboury and another against Henry Tisdell to recover for personal injuries in an automobile accident. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs except. Exceptions overruled.
Where plaintiffs were injured while riding in an automobile as guests of owner, owner was liable only for gross negligence.
Where plaintiffs were injured while riding in defendant's automobile, defendant's request that plaintiffs accompany him and his family, that ‘it would be more pleasure for us,’ held not to change relation of plaintiffs as guests of defendant, so as to make him liable for negligence instead of gross negligence.C. E. Tupper, of Worcester, for plaintiffs.
H. J. Nugent, of Worcester, for defendant.
The plaintiffs were injured while riding in an automobile of the defendant, driven by his agent. The case was submitted to the jury on the count for gross negligence; they were instructed by the judge that the plaintiffs could recover only on the ground that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence; to this instruction the plaintiffs excepted. The jury found for the defendant.
[1][2] The plaintiffs were sisters of the defendant's wife and lived in the defendant's house. On the day of the accident the defendant, his wife and son, and the plaintiffs, left Worcester for Central Falls, Rhode Island, in the defendant's automobile. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant is liable for his negligence, even if he is not guilty of gross negligence, because, when the plaintiffs were invited by the defendant to ride to Central Falls, one of them said: ‘I don't like to go on Sunday * * * because there is too much traffic’; to which the defendant replied: As the plaintiffs were the defendant's guests, he was liable only for gross negligence. Massaletti v. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487, 118 N. E. 168, L. R. A. 1918C, 264, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1088. The relation in which the plaintiffs stood to the defendant was not changed by the conversation. The desire to have the plaintiffs accompany the defendant, and his statement that they would all have a better time if the plaintiffs joined in the trip and that everything would be all right, did not show that they accompanied the defendant for his benefit, and for this reason Lyttle v. Monto, 248 Mass. 340...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Chamberlain
...within the meaning of the Massachusetts law is sustained. Flynn v. Lewis, 231 Mass. 550, 121 N. E. 493, 2 A. L. R. 896: Gaboury v. Tisdell, 261 Mass. 147, 158 N. E. 348. 2. The collision occurred at the intersection of the Cambridge road running north and south and the Bedford road which cr......
-
Nichols v. Rougeau
...63, 111 N. E. 712;Lyttle v. Monto, 248 Mass. 340, 142 N. E. 795;Jackson v. Queen, 257 Mass. 515, 517, 154 N. E. 78;Gaboury v. Tisdell, 261 Mass. 147, 149, 158 N. E. 348;Foley v. McDonald (Mass.) 185 N. E. 926. See, also, Labatte v. Lavallee, 258 Mass. 527, 155 N. E. 433;Murphy v. Barry, 264......
-
Puro v. Heikkinen
... ... error in ordering verdicts entered for the defendant ... Flynn v. Lewis, 231 Mass. 550 ... Askowith v ... Massell, 260 Mass. 202 ... Gaboury v. Tisdell, ... 261 Mass. 147 ... Baker v. Hurwitch, 265 Mass. 360 ... Jacobson v. Stone, 277 Mass. 323 ... Perkins v ... Gardner, 287 Mass. 114 ... ...
-
Sloan v. Nevil
...is not transformed into a trip with business aspect because the owner suggests it or extends the invitation. In Gaboury v. Tisdell, 261 Mass. 147, 158 N.E. 348, 349, plaintiffs were sisters of defendant's wife and lived in defendant's house; the accident occurred on a trip from Worcester, M......