Hanson v. Culton

• Decision Date: 03 December 1929
• Citation: 269 Mass. 471,169 N.E. 272
• Parties: HANSON v. CULTON (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

269 Mass. 471

169 N.E. 272

HANSON

v.CULTON (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Dec. 3, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Norfolk County; H. P. Williams, Judge.

Action of tort by Clarence Hanson and Beulah Hanson against William F. Culton. Verdicts for plaintiffs, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

1. Automobiles k56-Resident driving automobile without registration is trespasser, and cannot recover for another's negligence (G. L. c. 90, s 1).

One having place of abode or business in commonwealth for period of more than 30 days, and using automobile on public streets without registration required by G. L. c. 90, s 1, is a trespasser, and cannot recover damages sustained in collision, irrespective of negligence of driver of another car.

2. Automobiles k56-One employed in theater in state for three months, occupying room in state part time had ‘regular abode,’ in state precluding his recovery for damages sustained while operating unregistered automobile; ‘business' (G. L. c. 90, s 1).

One employed at theater in Boston as scenic artist during first three months of year, and having room in city which he occupied on an average of three nights a week, had place of abode in Massachusetts, notwithstanding domicile elsewhere, and could not recover for damages sustained in collision between his automobile driven without registration required by G. L. c. 90, s 1, and defendant's truck; ‘business' being anything which occupies the time, attention, and labor of a man for the purpose of profit.

[Ed. Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First, Second, and Third Series, Business.]

George F. James and Barnard Bachner, both of Boston, for plaintiffs.

J. J. Curran, of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

These two actions of tort arise out of the same accident, which occurred on April 30, 1927, on the state highway in the town of Walpole. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The husband was the owner of the automobile which was in collision with the defendant's truck. There was evidence of the defendant's negligence.

On the night in question the plaintiff Clarence Hanson, accompanied by Mrs. Hanson, ‘had driven his automobile to Boston to attend a Banquet.’ ‘He never had the automobile, involved in the accident, with him in Boston until the night of the accident.’ The record recites that the plaintiff Clarence Hanson was a resident of West Barrington, Rhode Island; that he was a scenic artist employed in Providence, Rhode Island; that from September, 1926, ‘into the first week of April, 1927, he was employed’ as a scenic artist in Boston. ‘During the period, September, 1926, to during the first week in April, 1927, the plaintiff lived at West Barrington, Rhode Island, and partly in Boston. He had a room at St. Stephens street in Boston, which he hired, soon after he went to Boston, about the first part of September, a room with a private family with his assistant; they roomed together and paid ‘so much’ a week for it. He occupied the room on an average of about three nights a week for the last four months of 1926 and the first three months of 1927. He ate out at different restaurants.' From September, 1926, and at the time of the accident, he was the owner of the automobile involved in the collision. It was registered in Rhode Island but was not registered in Massachusetts.

The defendant made several requests for rulings to the effect that the plaintiff Clarence Hanson was not a nonresident under the automobile statute; that he had a regular place of abode in this Commonwealth from January 1, 1927, to April 1, 1927; that he was the owner of the automobile while he had a regular place of abode in Massachusetts; that the law required the registration of his automobile in Massachusetts; that he was a trespasser on the highway. The defendant also asked in the case of Mrs. Hanson for a ruling that Mrs. Hanson was a passenger in an automobile not legally registered in this commonwealth. He excepted to the refusal of the judge...