Loftus v. Pelletier

Citation223 Mass. 63,111 N.E. 712
PartiesLOFTUS v. PELLETIER.
Decision Date01 March 1916
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; W. P. Hall, Judge.

Action by Mary K. Loftus against Alfred G. Pelletier. Case reported. Judgment for plaintiff.Maurice McWalter, of Concord, for plaintiff.

T. Hovey Gage, Frank F. Dresser, and Daniel W. Lincoln, all of Worcester, for defendant.

LORING, J.

The plaintiff, a district nurse, was injured while being driven by the defendant, a doctor, in his automobile. The jury were warranted in finding that at the time of the accident the defendant was driving the automobile negligently and that his neglect was the cause of the injury to the plaintiff.

The facts were, or could have been found to be, substantially as follows: The defendant had turned out of the main street into Mill Circle, which led ‘off to the right gradually,’ and not at a right angle. In going from the main street to Mill Circle there was not much of a grade at first, but later on it ‘comes pretty steep.’ The accident happened at ‘the beginning of the steep pitch.’ The road was crowned at this point, the surface was somewhat loose and it had rained a little that day. The defendant was in the habit of going over this Mill Circle road two or three times a week and was familiar with the place. Before the defendant took the hill he was running 25 to 30 miles an hour, when he came to the ‘steep pitch’ he ‘went faster,’ ‘opened the throttle on the steering wheel to give more gasoline and to give more speed.’ Then as he ‘made a sharp turn to take the hill,’ at this rate of speed (which it might have been found exceeded 30 miles an hour) the car skidded, ran on the two wheels for 40 or 50 feet and then turned over on its left side, the plaintiff ‘being thrown over the wind shield on the left side near the front of the car.’

[1][2] It is true that the mere fact of the car's skidding is not evidence of negligence. Williams v. Holbrook, 216 Mass. 239, 103 N. E. 633. But under all the circumstances of this case it was a question for the jury whether the skidding was caused by the defendant's negligence in driving at a speed of more than 30 miles an hour in going around a sharp curve when the crowned surface of the road was loose and wet. See in this connection Williams v. Holbrook, 216 Mass. 239, 241, 103 N. E. 633;Roach v. Hinchcliff, 214 Mass. 267, 101 N. E. 383.

[3] The defendant's main defense is that the plaintiff and defendant (district nurse and doctor) were engaged in a common enterprise, and that since it was been held that those engaged in a common enterprise are both liable for an accident caused in the carrying out of that enterprise (Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 52 N. E. 1068) and that the contributory negligence of one in such a case is to be imputed to the other or others engaged in it (Beaucage v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • Siesseger v. Puth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 27 Octubre 1931
    ...a reckless disregard of a plain duty to the public or a heedless and palpable violation of legal duty to the plaintiff. Loftus v. Pelletier, 223 Mass. 63, 111 N. E. 712;Burke v. Cook, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N. E. 585;Marcienowski v. Sanders, 252 Mass. 65, 147 N. E. 275;Bank v. Satran, 266 Mass.......
  • Siesseger v. Puth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 27 Octubre 1931
    ...... disregard of a plain duty to the public or a heedless and. palpable violation of legal duty to the plaintiff. Loftus. v. Pelletier, 223 Mass. 63, 111 N.E. 712; Burke v. Cook, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N.E. 585; Marcinowski v. Sanders, 252 Mass. 65, 147 N.E. 275, ......
  • Annin v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Enero 1937
    ...Cal.App. 402, 224 P. 143; Ortwein v. Droste, 191 Ky. 17, 228 S.W. 1028; Mackenzie v. Oakley, 94 N. J. L. 66, 108 A. 771; Loftus v. Pelletier, 223 Mass. 63, 111 N.E. 712. In order for the jury to find the appellant negligently failed to have the car under control, it is not necessary that th......
  • Duncan v. Hutchinson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 21 Enero 1942
    ......331, 80 P.2d 62; Scholz v. Leuer,. 7 Wash.2d 76, 109 P.2d 924; Cardinal v. Reinecke,. 280 Mich. 15, 273 N.W. 330, 274 N.W. 379; Loftus v. Pelletier, 223 Mass. 63, 111 N.E. 712; Lyttle v. Monto, 248 Mass. 340, 142 N.E. 795; Jackson v. Queen, 257 Mass. 515, 154 N.E. 78; Labatte v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT