Littlefield v. Gilman

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: RUGG, J.
• Citation: Littlefield v. Gilman, 207 Mass. 539, 93 N. E. 809 (Mass. 1911)
• Decision Date: 06 January 1911
• Parties: LITTLEFIELD v. GILMAN.

207 Mass. 539

93 N.E. 809

LITTLEFIELD v. GILMAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

January 6, 1911

COUNSEL

Francis Hurtubis, Jr., and G. H. Power, for plaintiff.

J. C. & T. J. Hammond, R. W. Nason, and T. W. Proctor, for defendant.

OPINION

RUGG J.

This is an action of tort to recover damages for the conscious suffering of one William H. Littlefield which resulted from the collision of an automobile driven by the defendant with that operated by one Murphy. The deceased was riding with Murphy as his guest, and there was evidence from which it might have been found that the injuries were caused by the concurrent negligence of the defendant and Murphy. The latter was employed as a repair man at a garage, and although not licensed as a chauffeur was driving the automobile on the business of his employer. The only exception, not now waived was to the refusal of the superior court to rule that 'if the jury find that the driver was negligence in driving the automobile in which Littlefield was riding and such negligence was a contributory cause of the accident, then the plaintiff is bound by such negligence and cannot recover.' This request is directly contrary to the law as laid down in Shultz v. Old Colony Street Ry. Co., 193 Mass. 309, 79 N.E. 873, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 597, 118 Am St. Rep. 502, and the several cases following it to the effect that the negligence of the driver of a vehicle is not ordinarily to be imputed to one riding merely as guest, who is himself in the exercise of due care. The instructions given were clear and ample in accordance with this principle. It is now argued in support of the exception that because St 1903, c. 473, §§ 4 and 5,...