Lyttle v. Monto

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Citation248 Mass. 340,142 N.E. 795
PartiesLYTTLE v. MONTO.
Decision Date06 March 1924

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; J. Walsh, Judge.

Action of tort in behalf of William Lyttle, a minor, against Louis F. Monto, to recover damages for injuries sustained while riding upon the defendant's auto truck. Verdict for plaintiff, and both parties bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

1. Negligence k221/2-Automoblie owner not liable to guest excpt for gross negligence.

Owner of automobile is not liable for injuries to a guest in the absence of gross negligence.

2. Negligence k136(18)-Whether boy on automobile truck was mere licensee held for jury.

Where defendant operating an automobile truck asked a boy where certain place was and not being able to understand told the boy to jump on the truck and they drove to such place and thereafter the defendant told the boy to climb on the truck and he would take him home, whether the boy on the way home was a mere licensee or entitled to the exercise of reasonable care held for the jury.

3. Negllgence k134(4)-Finding of negllgence as to boy on truck sustained.

In an action by boy for injuries received when thrown from defendant's automobile truck, evidence held to sustain a finding that defendant was negligent in the operation of the truck.Patrick J. Duane, of Waltham, for plaintiff.

Dallinger & Stearns and James L. Edwards, all of Boston, for defendant.

DE COURCY, J.

The case went to the jury on the amended declaration, designated as the ‘third count,’ and there was a verdict for the plaintiff. The only exception is to the refusal of the judge to direct a verdict for the refendant. On the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff the jury could find the material facts to be as follows: On the afternoon of May 16, 1921, the defendant Monto was operating an automobile truck owned by him. At the corner of Lowell and Chestnut streets in the city of Waltham he saw the plaintiff, a boy nine years of age, and asked him where ‘Dolan's Paint Shop’ was, on Alder Street. The boy told him, but Monto ‘didn't quite understand,’ and said ‘Jump on and show me.’ Thereupon the boy climbed upon the running board, and went with Monto to Dolan's place, which was about a quarter of a mile distant. The truck was backed up the driveway and some barrels were there delivered. The defendant then said ‘Jump on, kid, and I'll drive you home.’ The boy thereupon jumped upon the running board, grasping a post or upright, and Monto started down the driveway, driving slowly. Just before reaching the sidewalk he suddenly put on speed, turned quickly to the right, the car went over the curbstone, and the plaintiff was thrown to the ground and injured.

[1][2][3] The controlling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • Duncan v. Hutchinson, 28662.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 21 Enero 1942
    ...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. Lavallee, supra; Semons v. Towns, 285 Mass. 96, 188 N.E. 605. Compare ......
  • Duncan v. Hutchinson, 28662.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 21 Enero 1942
    ...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. Lavallee, supra; Semons v. Towns, 285 Mass. 96, 188 N.E. 605. Compare ......
  • Alderman v. Noble
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 13 Noviembre 1936
    ...benefit in return, without becoming technically a servant. If so, he was entitled to ordinary care for his safety. Lyttle v. Monto, 248 Mass. 340, 142 N.E. 795;Foley v. McDonald, 283 Mass. 96, 185 N.E. 926;Nichols v. Rougeau, 284 Mass. 371, 375, 187 N.E. 710;Semons v. Towne, 285 Mass. 96, 1......
  • Beaulieu v. Lincoln Rides, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 28 Febrero 1952
    ...liability for ordinary negligence, it is only necessary for a jury to find some business advantage to the defendant. Lyttle v. Monto, 248 Mass. 340, 142 N.E. 795; Semons v. Towns, 285 Mass. 96, 100, 188 N.E. 605; O'Brien v. Bernoi, 297 Mass. 271, 8 N.E.2d 780; Epstein v. Simco Trading Co., ......
  • 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