Lucey v. John Hope & Sons Engraving & Mfg. Co.

Decision Date19 March 1923
Docket NumberNo. 5704.,5704.
Citation120 A. 62
PartiesLUCEY v. JOHN HOPE & SONS ENGRAVING & MFG. CO. et al.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; George T. Brown, Judge.

Action by Mary E. Lucey against the John Hope & Sons Engraving & Manufacturing Company and others. From a verdict for plaintiff, defendants Charles H. Hope and William H. Hope bring individual bills of exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted with directions.

George F. Troy, of Providence, for plaintiff.

Huddy, Emerson & Moulton, of Providence, for defendants.

VINCENT, J. This is an action of the case for negligence brought by Mary E. Lucey against John Hope & Sons Engraving & Manufacturing Company and William H. Hope and Charles H. Hope, tentatively joined as by statute, to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a collision between two automobiles, proceeding in opposite directions on Elmwood avenue in Providence.

The automobile in which the plaintiff was riding belonged to Louis H. Comstock, and was being driven by his chauffeur: The other automobile was owned by the John Hope & Sons Engraving & Manufacturing Company, and was being operated by the defendant Charles H. Hope, while his brother William H. Hope and a mutual friend occupied the rear seat. The plaintiff was a trained nurse, and in that capacity was accompanying Mr. Comstock, whose state of health required her attendance and ministrations.

Immediately following this collision the Comstock automobile collided with an electric car of the Rhode Island Company, and from this second impact the plaintiff received the injuries for which she is now seeking to recover damages.

The case was tried before a justice of the superior court, sitting with a Jury, as against the defendants Charles H. Hope and William H. Hope, a nonsuit having been granted as to the defendant John Hope & Sons Engraving & Manufacturing Company. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,500. The defendants filed separate motions for a new trial, which were denied, and the case is now before us upon their individual bills of exceptions. The questions raised in both bills of exceptions are substantially the same.

The defendants excepted to certain portions of the charge of the court which they claim were misleading in that the language employed left the jury to infer that their verdict should be against the defendants jointly, whereas they should have been instructed that they might render a verdict against either of the defendants. This position of the defendants raises the question as to whether the excursion in which they were engaged upon the afternoon of the accident was in the nature of a joint enterprise, which would make them jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries which she sustained, or whether the driver of the defendants' automobile, Charles H. Hope, had the entire control and management thereof and therefore was the only one who could have been guilty of negligence and consequently wholly responsible for any damage resulting therefrom.

The automobile was the property of the John Hope & Sons Engraving & Manufacturing Company. It was not being used however, on the afternoon in question, in connection with the business of that corporation. It was being employed by the defendants Charles H. and William H. Hope in making an excursion into the country for their mutual entertainment and pleasure. The law relating to joint enterprises is concisely stated in 20 R. C. L. at page 149, as follows:

"If two or more persons unite in a joint prosecution of a common purpose under such circumstances that each has authority, express...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Mavrakos v. Mavrakos Candy Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 12, 1949
    ...... Grindstaff v. J. Goldberg & Sons Structure Steel Co., 328 Mo. 72, 40. S.W.2d ...Modern Cap Mfg. Co., 312 Mo. 173, 279 S.W. 89; Tramill v. ...(16) Joint venture: the negligence of John. Mavrakos. Tannehill v. Kansas City, C. & S. Ry. ...Neyer, 149 S.W.2d 366;. Lucey v. John Hope & Sons Engraving & Mfg. Co., 45 R.I. ......
  • Parton v. Weilnau
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 29, 1959
    ...each has might reasonably be held to support an inference that each has control over it. See for example Lucey v. John Hope & Sons, Engraving & Mfg. Co., 45 R.I. 103, 120 A. 62; Hinkle v. Union Transfer Co., 10 Cir., 1955, 229 F.2d 403; and El Paso Electric Co. v. Leeper, Tex.Com.App., 60 S......
  • Greer v. Pierce
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 20, 1933
    ...... appellant, John Toney. . . Under. the facts, as they ...666, 50 A. L. R. 357; Lucy v. John Hope & Sons Engraving Co., 45 R. I. 103, 120 A. 62. ......
  • Clark v. Town of Hampton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • March 5, 1929
    ...A. 74; Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 92 N. E. 774, 138 Am. St. Rep. 401; Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 52 N. E. 1068; Lucey v. Co., 45 R. I. 103, 120 A. 62; Seiden v. Reimer, 190 App. Div. 713, 180 N. Y. S. 345, affirmed in 232 N. Y. 593, 134 N. E. 585; Van Horn v. Simpson, 35 S. D. 6......
  • 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