Hutchings v. Vacca
| Decision Date | 19 May 1916 |
| Citation | 112 N.E. 652,224 Mass. 269 |
| Parties | HUTCHINGS v. VACCA et al. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Wm. P. Hall, Judge.
Actions by George T. Hutchings and by Roy Hutchings against John S. Vacca and others. Verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant John S. Vacca excepts. Exceptions overruled.
An occupant of an automobile, as a guest of the owner, on the occurrence of an accident, due to the negligence of the driver, over whom the occupant exercised no direction or control, was not liable to one injured thereby.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. ss 39, 40; Dec. Dig. k26.]
In an action for injuries from a collision of plaintiff's carriage with an automobile, in which the owner, the defendant, a guest, and his wife, were riding, and which was driven by the defendant's son, who had no license as a driver, and was learning to drive partly under the defendant's direction, held, on the evidence, that defendant's liability was for the jury.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. ss 279, 289, 303; Dec. Dig. k136(13).]
Frederick B. Spellman, of Worcester, for plaintiffs.
Thomas L. Walsh, of Fitchburg, and Simon Friedman and Timothy F. Larkin, both of Worcester, for defendants.
The plaintiffs, while traveling by carriage on a public way, were injured by a collision with an automobile in which the defendant Ralph Vacca the owner, the defendant Michael Vacca the driver, and the defendant John S. Vacca the brother of Ralph and the father of Michael, were riding with Pia Vacca the wife of John.
The jury upon conflicting evidence having found for the plaintiffs against all the defendants, the case is before us on the exceptions of John S. Vacca who contends there was no evidence which warranted a verdict against him.
We shall refer to him as the defendant.
[1][2] If he was an occupant of the car as the guest of his brother and the accident was due to the negligence of the driver over whom the defendant exercised no direction or control, his request that a verdict be ordered in his favor should have been given. Shultz v. Old Colony Street Railway, 193 Mass. 309, 79 N. E. 873,8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 597, 118 Am. St. Rep. 502,9 Ann. Cas. 402. But the unlicensed driver who operated the car at the time of the accident was the defendant's son and the jury could further find that he was ‘learning to drive the car’ and that with knowledge of his inexperience and shortly before the accident as the car was approaching the plaintiffs' team in the rear, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stock v. Fife
...to establish such a right of control. Here, the car was not owned by Driscoll or any other passenger, see Hutchings v. Vacca, 224 Mass. 269, 270, 112 N.E. 652 (1916); Thompson v. Sides, supra 275 Mass. at 569, 176 N.E. 623; see also Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 521, 52 N.E. 1068 (1899) (r......
-
Alderman v. Noble
...that does not necessarily involve any accounts or financial affairs. Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 52 N.E. 1068;Hutchings v. Vacca, 224 Mass. 269, 112 N.E. 652. A joint adventure is sometimes so free from complexity that its affairs can be settled in an action at law. Welch v. Miller, 210 ......
-
Alderman v. Noble
... ... does not necessarily involve any accounts or financial ... affairs. Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 52 N.E ... 1068; Hutchings v. Vacca, 224 Mass. 269, 112 N.E ... 652. A joint adventure is sometimes so free from complexity ... that its affairs can be settled in an action ... ...
-
Straffus v. Barclay
...271 S.W. 705; Williams v. Blue, 173 N.C. 452, 92 S.E. 270; Langley v. Southern Ry. Co. 113 S.C. 45, 101 S.E. 286; and Hutchings v. Vacca, 224 Mass. 269, 112 N. E. 652. It seems also true that a verdict against Carl would have been readily sustainable under the rule prevailing in this state ......