Hall v. Hamel

• Decision Date: 11 April 1923
• Citation: 244 Mass. 464
• Parties: MARION E. HALL v. ARTHUR A. HAMEL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

244 Mass. 464

MARION E. HALL v. ARTHUR A. HAMEL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

April 11, 1923

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, DE COURCY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Conflict of Laws. Negligence, Motor Vehicle.

The question whether the operator of a motor vehicle is liable to a guest of his who is injured while in the motor vehicle in another State because of his operation thereof, is to be determined according to the law of that State, although such law holds the operator to a more strict accountability than does the law of this Commonwealth; and, at the trial in a court of this Commonwealth of an action of tort for such personal injuries, the question, what was the law of such State applicable in the circumstances, is one of fact to be determined on all the evidence introduced on the subject at the trial.

TORT for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in the town of Plaistow in the State of New Hampshire while there riding as a guest of the defendant in a motor vehicle operated by the defendant. Writ dated January 19, 1921.

In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Qua, J. The only evidence as to the law of New Hampshire appearing in the bill of exceptions was the following: "Robert Doe, a qualified attorney at law practising in Dover in the State of New Hampshire, testified that, under the New Hampshire law, if a person riding with another in an automobile without hire or compensation is injured by the owner and driver, the plaintiff is not required to prove gross negligence, but may recover upon ordinary negligence; that the case of Carr v Maine Central Railroad, 79 N.H. 502, states the doctrine of the law of New Hampshire with reference to the law of application upon one who undertakes a gratuitous duty or service; also Kimball v. American Express Co. 76 N.H. 81; that in New Hampshire the court does not attempt to distinguish in terms any definite degrees of negligence, but requires the average care of the average man; that emergency is one of the surrounding circumstances from which the jury will decide what the average man in that situation would have done."

At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved that a verdict be ordered in his favor. The motion was denied. The defendant then asked for a ruling that, on all the evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The ruling was refused. In his charge, the judge instructed the jury on the questions of what the New Hampshire law was, and what was its application to the evidence, in substance as follows: "I do not perceive any conflict in the evidence as to what the law of New Hampshire is, or as to what the...