Manning v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 05 January 1928 |
| Citation | 261 Mass. 494,159 N.E. 440 |
| Parties | MANNING v. SIMPSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Philip J. O'Connell, Judge.
Action of tort by Mary A. Manning against George W. Simpson to recover for personal injuries sustained while plaintiff was riding with defendant as a guest in his automobile. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
For guest in an automobile to recover against her host for injuries alleged to be due to his carelessness in driving, she must show that her host was guilty of gross negligence.
In guest's action against her host for injuries from his carelessness in driving automobile, in that he, on slippery road, put on additional speed and drove to left across path of approaching car to get into driveway, whether in so doing he was guilty of gross negligence held for jury, under conflicting evidence as to conditions existing at place of accident.
‘Gross negligence’ of driver of automobile, authorizing recovery by guest for personal injuries, consists of such utter disregard of dictates of prudence, amounting to complete neglect of guest's safety.
[Ed. Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Gross Negligence.]
C. W. Proctor and J. C. McDonald, both of Worcester, for plaintiff.
H. A. Moran, of Springfield, for defendant.
[1] This is an action brought by a guest against her host for injuries alleged to be due to his carelessness in driving the automobile in which they were riding. In order to recover she must show that her host was guilty of gross negligence. West v. Poor, 196 Mass. 183, 81 N. E. 960,11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 936, 124 Am. St. Rep. 541;Massaletti v. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487, 118 N. E. 168, L. R. A. 1918C, 264, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1088.
[2][3] The defendant does not dispute that, meeting an on-coming automobile at a curve on a slippery road and fearing a collision, he put on additional speed and drove to his left across the path of the approaching car in a futile attempt to get into a driveway which entered the road a little ahead of him. He contends that as matter of law he cannot be found grossly negligent. There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the accident would have been avoided had he stopped when an ordinarily prudent man would have appreciated danger, or had he turned to his right and kept on across a graveled border and upon some car tracks which, though uninviting, were less...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittsley v. David
...145,Smith v. Axtman (Mass.) 6 N.E.2d 809, and Goodwin v. Walton (Mass.) 11 N.E.2d 460. The facts differ from those in Manning v. Simpson, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N.E. 440. Some of the evidence of the witness Pittsley indicated that he saw the automobile with which he collided and another, travel......
-
Williamson v. McKenna
...263 and Berman v. Berman, 1929, 110 Conn. 169, 147 A. 568 with Burke v. Cook, 1923, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N.E. 585 and Manning v. Simpson, 1928, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N.E. 440. It would seem that in Massachusetts gross negligence and reckless conduct are one and the same in spite of the judicial ......
-
Sorrell v. White
...The court held that the evidence fully sustained the finding that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence. In Manning v. Simpson, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N. E. 440, evidence that the defendant, meeting another automobile on a curved and slippery road and fearing a collision, put on addition......
-
Mabel Sorrell v. Aldona White
... ... that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence ... In ... Manning v. Simpson, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N.E ... 440, evidence that the defendant, meeting another automobile ... on a curved and slippery road and fearing ... ...