Kidder v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 06 November 1957 |
| Citation | 336 Mass. 307,145 N.E.2d 684 |
| Parties | Roland H. KIDDER v. Oakley WHITNEY and another. Alvin H. MALLETTE v. Oakley WHITNEY and another. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jay W. Mead, Orleans, for plaintiffs.
James C. Donnelly, Jr., for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and CUTTER, JJ.
These are two actions of tort to recover damages sustained by the plaintiffs when the motorcycle upon which they were riding collided with an automobile on Route 2 in Orange near the entrance of the defendants' theatre. The plaintiffs excepted to the direction of verdicts for the defendants at the close of the evidence.
The defendants conducted an open air theatre on the northerly side of Route 2 which was reached over a private way for a short distance from this public highway. At or near the junction of this private way and the public way one Riddell, a private police officer, directed traffic into and from the drive-in theatre. He was on duty the night of June 19, 1952. He noticed an automobile called the Laffond automobile, on the right or southerly side of Route 2 apparently waiting an opportunity to enter the theatre driveway. Riddell stopped traffic going west and then motioned the operator of the Laffond automobile to enter the theatre driveway. As this automobile was proceeding across Route 2 the motorcycle appeared beyond the automobile going west and the Laffond automobile and the motorcycle came into collision. There was evidence that Riddell did not see the motorcycle until after it appeared beyond the automobile which was headed west and had been stopped as it reached the junction of the theatre way and Route 2. There was conflicting evidence as to the exact location of the Laffond automobile. There was evidence that there was ample space for the motorcycle to pass in the rear of this automobile.
Riddell was a special police officer. The defendants had no voice in his selection. He was appointed by the selectmen on April 15, 1952. He was not under civil service. The town lent him a few pieces of equipment. He procured his own uniform. He was paid for services by the defendants. Whatever instruction he received in directing traffic was given to him by the chief of police, who observed him each week to see how he was performing to had some officer do it. As far as the record goes Riddell never received any instruction or directions concerning traffic from the defendants. They left that to his judgment and discretion. He sometimes sold tickets but that was not his job and on such occasions he was evidently helping out.
The principal issue in this case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. City of Malden
...was "performing the work of a police officer" and "not acting in the capacity of employee of the contractor"); Kidder v. Whitney, 336 Mass. 307, 308-09, 145 N.E.2d 684 (1957) (finding that a police officer paid to direct traffic by defendant-operators of an open air theater was not defendan......
-
Owens v. City of Malden
... ... officer" and "not acting in the capacity of ... employee of the contractor"); Kidder v ... Whitney , 336 Mass. 307, 308-09 (1957) (finding that a ... police officer paid to direct traffic by defendant-operators ... ...
-
Owens v. City of Malden
... ... of a police officer” and “not acting in the ... capacity of employee of the contractor”); Kidder v ... Whitney, 336 Mass. 307, 308-09 (1957) (finding that a ... police officer paid to direct traffic by defendant-operators ... ...
-
Seelig v. Harvard Co-op. Soc.
...officer and leave him to decide what he will do * * * the defendant is not liable for the action of the officer.' Kidder v. Whitney, 336 Mass. 307, 308-309, 145 N.E.2d 684, 685. The defendant is not responsible where the officer acts 'entirely upon his own judgment and responsibility as a p......