Hendler v. Coffey
| Decision Date | 01 March 1932 |
| Parties | HENDLER v. COFFEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division; Good, Judge.
Action by Charles T. Hendler against James Coffey. On report to the appellate Division, after a finding for plaintiff, the report was dismissed, and defendant appeals.
Order dismissing report affirmed.B. W. Taylor and G. L. Wainwright, both of Boston, for appellant.
A. E. Yont, of Boston, for appellee.
This action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant was tried in the municipal court of the city of Boston and resulted in a finding for the plaintiff. The judge admitted certain evidence as to damages, subject to the defendant's objection, and refused to rule as the defendant requested that on all the evidence he was not negligent. The questions of law so raised were reported to the appellate division which ordered the report dismissed. The defendant appealed.
1. A finding that the defendant was negligent was warranted. The evidence was substantially as follows: The plaintiff was riding in a taxicab in down-town Boston. He was seated on the right side of the rear seat of the taxicab with another passenger at his left. The taxicab was stopped by a police officer at a street intersection to permit traffic to move on the cross street. It was at the extreme right of the street ‘ahead of one line of traffic and * * * there was other traffic going in the same direction.’ Other automobiles were at the left of the taxicab and pedestrians were moving about nearby. The taxicab had been standing approximately a minute when it was struck in the rear by the automobile operated by the defendant. The plaintiff ‘was thrown against some part of the cab striking the left side of his head * * * [and] was then thrown forward striking his head again and put his hand against the partition in front of him to avoid being thrown to the floor.’ The defendant did not see the taxicab. There was no evidence as to the part of the defendant's automobile which struck the taxicab or the part of the rear of the taxicab which was struck.
[2] Evidence of the happening of a collision between the two motor vehicles-even if a rear-end collision-without evidence of the circumstances under which it happened is not proof of negligence of the operator of either of them. Such a collision is not within the rule res ipsa loquitur. Washburn v. R. F. Owens Co., 252 Mass. 47, 54, 147 N. E. 564,Woolner v. Perry, 265 Mass. 74, 77, 163 N. E. 750. Slight evidence of the circumstances, however, may place the fault. Where, as here, there is evidence that under the conditions of traffic disclosed a taxicab standing at the extreme right of a street for an appreciable time was struck in the rear by another automobile with the force indicated by the result to this plaintiff, and the operator of the automobile striking the taxicab did not see it before the collision, circumstances are shown which, in the absence of any binding explanation to the contrary (see Washburn v. R. F. Owens Co., 258 Mass. 446, 450, 155 N. E. 432), warrant the inference that the operator of the moving automobile was negligent. See Stone v. Mullen, 257 Mass. 344, 346, 153 N. E. 565;Woolner v. Perry, 265 Mass. 74, 77, 163 N. E. 750;Bryne v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 269 Mass. 130, 131, 168 N. E. 540. A finding of negligence of the defendant was not precluded by the absence of evidence as to the part of his automobile which struck the taxicab. It was inferable that this automobile, to some extent at least, was behind the taxicab, else no part of it-front, side or rear-could have struck the rear of the taxicab. Whatever the fact as to the part of the defendant's automobile which struck the rear of the taxicab, it could have been found that the defendant was negligent in so operating his automobile that the collision occurred without his seeing the taxicab. The evidence goes far enough to show the reasonably probable cause of the collision and the plaintiff was not required to exclude other possible causes thereof (Young v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Standard Oil Co. of California
...164 P. 1105; Lombardi v. California St. Ry. Co., 124 Cal. 311, 57 P. 66; Perry v. Ryback, 302 Pa. 559, 153 A. 770, 772; Hendler v. Coffey, 278 Mass. 339, 179 N.E. 801; Walsh v. New York etc. R. Co., 204 N.Y. 58, 68, N.E. 408, 37 L. R. A., N. S., 1137; Weir v. Union Ry. Co., 188 N.Y. 416, 81......
-
Ryder v. Town of Lexington
...his own ruling and disregarded any evidence of market value. Washburn v. R. F. Owens Co., 252 Mass. 47, 147 N.E. 564;Hendler v. Coffey, 278 Mass. 339, 179 N.E. 801;Walsh v. Justice of the District Court of Springfield, Mass., 9 N.E.2d 555. Even if Ryder was the only witness for the plaintif......
-
Walsh v. Justice of the Dist. Court of Springfield
...v. Fall River, 219 Mass. 580, 586, 107 N.E. 419;Manning v. Woodlawn Cemetery Corp., 245 Mass. 250, 253, 139 N.E. 830;Hendler v. Coffey, 278 Mass. 339, 342, 343, 179 N.E. 801. A party who succeeds in introducing incompetent evidence has no right to insist that it remain in the case. The tria......
-
Smith v. Corsat, 743
...'earnings' are not synonymous. Loss of personal earnings is properly considered as an element or measure of damages. Hendler v. Coffey, 278 Mass. 339, 179 N.E. 801 (1932); Flintjer v. Kansas City, 204 S.W. 951 (Mo.App.1918); Singer v. Martin, 96 Wash. 231, 164 P. 1105 (1917); Mahoney v. Bos......