Hinds v. Steere

• Decision Date: 22 June 1911
• Citation: 95 N.E. 844,209 Mass. 442
• Parties: HINDS v. STEERE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

209 Mass. 442

95 N.E. 844

HINDS v. STEERE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 22, 1911

COUNSEL

Powers & Hall for plaintiff.

David T. Montague, Wade Keyes, and Malcolm E. Sturtevant, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

This was an action of tort for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a collision on the highway between a 'sight seeing automobile' owned by the defendant, in which the plaintiff was riding as a passenger, and an electric car operated by the Boston Elevated Railway Company. The plaintiff brought a suit also against the railway company. The two suits were tried together before a jury and in each a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff.

Upon the question of the care required of the defendant the judge charged as follows: 'With reference to the chauffeur of the automobile, the care is a little different than it is with reference to the motorman of the car. I have said to you before that a common carrier has to a exercise a high decree of care with reference to passengers, and in this case the chauffeur was exercising the care--should have exercised a care with reference to passengers, because these two plaintiffs were passengers on his vehicle, and for the purposes of this case, he should have exercised the high degree of care with reference to their safety, and where the care was with reference to a collision, where the danger and the damage might be very great, it is a degree of care in view of the danger, and of the injury that might be caused by any want of care. Now if he did not exercise that high degree of care, then, so far as Mr. Hinds' case is concerned, you will find for the plaintiff against the owner of the automobile, Mrs. Steere. If he did exercise the high degree of care, then you will find for the defendant in the case against her.'

To this part of the charge the defendant excepted, and the case is before us on this exception. The contention of the defendant is expressed in her brief as follows: 'In that portion of the charge to the jury excepted to by the defendant, the presiding judge instructed the jury that the driver of the automobile was obliged to exercise the high degree of care required of a common carrier with reference to passengers and that if the jury found that the driver of the automobile did not exercise that high degree of care required of a common carrier of passengers, they should find for the plaintiff; or in other words, that the owner of the automobile was a common carrier of passengers. The defendant contends that she was not a common carrier of passengers within the legal meaning of that term, but was a private carrier only.'

It appeared that the automobile was a five-ton truck about twenty-five feet in length and ten feet in width; that there were six seats running crosswise, holding about four to five people each, the whole automobile being designed to carry...