Guiney v. Union Ice Co.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1916
• Citation: 225 Mass. 279
• Parties: CORNELIUS J. GUINEY v. UNION ICE COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

225 Mass. 279

CORNELIUS J. GUINEY v. UNION ICE COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

November 29, 1916

October 18, 1916.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., LORING, BRALEY PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Negligence Licensee. Evidence, Competency. Practice, Civil, Conduct of trial.

Where an expressman was ordered to go for certain ice to be delivered by an ice company from a freight car, and had "nothing to do there except to wait for the ice," but, instead of waiting outside, entered the car although he "had nothing particular to do in the car," and there was injured by a glancing and unintentional blow of an ice pick in the hand of a workman of the ice company, he has no cause of action against the ice company, because he was at most a mere licensee in the car.

In an action brought by such workman against the ice company for his injury, after the facts stated above had appeared in evidence, the plaintiff was asked by his counsel in redirect examination, in reference to his presence in the car, the question, "Was there any reason other than you testified to?" and the question was excluded by the judge. The plaintiff made no offer of proof and no statement showing what answer was expected. Held, that it could not be said as matter of law that the exclusion of the question was wrong.

TORT for personal injuries sustained on May 19, 1906, when the plaintiff, who was an expressman and had been sent to receive certain ice to be delivered by the defendant from a freight car at the Union Freight car yard back of Commercial Wharf in Boston, was alleged to have been struck with an ice pick by reason of the negligence of a servant of the defendant in handling the ice. Writ dated March 15, 1907.

In the Superior Court the case was tried before Brown, J. The evidence is described in the opinion and also the circumstances under which the plaintiff was asked the question quoted in the opinion on redirect examination by his counsel and the question was excluded by the judge.

At the defendant's request the judge ruled that the plaintiff could not maintain his action and ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

J. H. Morson, for the plaintiff. E. C. Stone, for the defendant.

BRALEY, J. If the plaintiff had not been in the car from which the ice was being taken and placed on his wagon he would not have been injured by the glancing and unintentional blow of an ice pick in the...