Heywood v. Ogasapian
| Decision Date | 20 May 1916 |
| Citation | 112 N.E. 619,224 Mass. 203 |
| Parties | HEYWOOD v. OGASAPIAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; Geo. A. Sanderson, Judge.
Action by Ann M. Heywood against Garobed Ogasapian. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
In an action for injuries caused by the negligence of the driver of an automobile, questions whether defendant was the owner of the car, whether it was being operated by his direction, and whether the driver was his servant, held for the jury under the evidence.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. s 1274; Dec. Dig. k332(1).]
In an action for injuries by an automobile, evidence held sufficient to justify finding that the driver, at the time of the accident, was engaged in defendant's business.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. s 1272; Dec. Dig. k330(3).]
Arthur Withington, of Newburyport, for plaintiff.
Charles Neal Barney and Robert T. Woodruff, both of Lynn, for defendant.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by the plaintiff on August 26, 1914, by collision with an automobile while she was crossing on foot a certain highway in the town of Salisbury. The case was tried before a judge of the superior court and a jury.
At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved that a verdict be directed for the defendant on the ground that there was no evidence warranting a verdict for the plaintiff. This motion was overruled and the defendant duly excepted.
At the close of the evidence, the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury among other things, as follows:
‘3. There is no evidence that the operator of the automobile which collided with the plaintiff was acting as the servant or agent of the defendant at the time of the accident.
‘4. There is no evidence that said accident happened during the course of the employment of Hiki Kelgikian by the defendant.
It was admitted that the automobile was being driven at the time of the accident by one Hiki Kelgikian; that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and that the driver was negligent. As argued, the only question presented is whether upon all the evidence ‘the defendant could properly be held liable for the negligence of said Hiki Kelgikian.’
To establish the affirmative of this proposition, the plaintiff produced evidence which, if believed, warranted the jury in finding that the defendant was at the time of the accident and had been for several years the proprietor of a fruit, confectionery and ice cream store; that during these years Kelgikian, who was his son-in-law and lived with him over the store, had worked in the conduct of the business, and after the accident he continued to do so for several months; that before June, 1914, a large part of the business was carried on at the beaches, a ‘team’ being used to make deliveries; that in June, 1914, the ‘team’ was given up and an automobile purchased which was used in selling ice cream, confectionery and fruit; that the car was insured in the name of the defendant, and that his name, Garobed Ogasapian, was painted on the outside of the car.
All the above statements of fact were contained in the testimony of the defendant, and he testified and offered other evidence in explanation thereof, and in contradiction of the inferences that might be drawn therefrom, that Kelgikian in June, 1914, purchased the car with money of his own or of his daughter; that he did not know the price paid for the car; that none of his money was used to purchase it; that upon the purchase of the car Kelgikian registered it in his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority
...Carney was in the authority's building at 20 Bickford Street in his capacity as the defendant's servant (compare Heywood v. Ogasapian, 224 Mass. 203, 112 N.E. 619 (1916); Breen v. Dedham Water Co., 241 Mass. 217, 135 N.E. 130 (1922); Altoonian v. Muldonian, 277 Mass. 53, 177 N.E. 830 (1931)......
-
McDonough v. Vozzela
...Rendering Co., 213 Mass. 465, 100 N. E. 647, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 907;Hopwood v. Pokrass, 219 Mass. 263, 106 N. E. 997;Heywood v. Ogasapian, 224 Mass. 203, 112 N. E. 619;Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass. 160, 106 N. E. 599;Ouimette v. Harris, 219 Mass. 466, 107 N. E. 435;Barney v. Magenis, 241 Mass......
-
Pan-American Petroleum Corporation v. Pate
...two defendants. Finkbine Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292; Vaughn v. Davis, 121 S.W. 786; Robertson v. Hill, 111 P. 871; Haygood v. Ogasapian, 112 N.E. 619. the supreme court will review the action of a lower court in overruling a motion for a new trial, the reasons offered for such ......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. Franks
......Cunningham, 57 So. 916;. Vaughn v. William F. Davis & Sons, 121 S.W. 786;. Robertson v. Hill, 31 P. 871; Haygood v. Ogasapian,. 112 N.E. 619. . . Counsel. for defendant assign as error and seriously set up that the. cause ought to be reversed because the jury ......