Murphy v. Huntley
| Citation | 251 Mass. 555,146 N.E. 710 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. HUNTLEY. |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; P. J. O'Connell, Judge.
Action of tort by Cornelius A. Murphy against David W. Huntley, doing business as the Huntley Garage, for personal injuries. On defendant's exceptions to court's action overruling motion for directed verdict. Exceptions sustained, and judgment entered for defendant.
F. W. McEnery, of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. D. Gray, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant maintained a garage for the storage of automobiles of customers, and the evidence warranted the jury in finding that the personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the defendant in the maintenance and operation of an elevator running from the basement to the main floor. In the afternoon of the day of the accident, one Kelley, accompanied by the plaintiff and two other persons, one of whom was a Miss Murphy, all fellow employees, left their employer's place of business and went to the garage where Kelley's car was stored. The plaintiff testified that, while waiting with Miss Murphy on Bowker Street for the car, ‘a man came out of the garage whom he might have seen before and who worked around there; that the plaintiff did not see him afterwards on the same day; that the plaintiff and Miss Murphy went into the garage; that afterwards he saw inside the garage the ‘party that asked me, we went in the garage with the man we went in the garage with,’ and also saw the two other members of the party; that Kelley was busy around his car, and after Kelley cranked it the plaintiff and Miss Murphy got into the car on the front seat; that Kelley was driving the car, and the plaintiff was in the back seat; that the car was about 15 or 20 yards from the elevator; that Kelley attempted to go out, and he could not get by any machines.' A man working around there then said, ‘Pull right on the elevator and I will take you up to the next floor.’ The car was in the basement, and Kelley testified that he intended to go out at the entrance into Bowker Street where the plaintiff and other members of the party were to get in, but upon the suggestion of the defendant's employee in charge of the premises, instead of leaving by Bowker street, he drove the car onto the elevator for the purpose of using the entrance to Hawkins street, which was on the floor above the basement.
The question for decision is, whether the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loney v. Laramie Auto Co.
...him in the attitude of a licensee and, as such, the only duty defendant owed him was not to wilfully or wantonly injure him; Murphy v. Huntley, (Mass.) 146 N.E. 710; Fleckenstein v. Co., 102 A. 700; Watson v. Co., (Colo.) 92 P. 17; 20 Cyc. 449; 2 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, 584. He......
-
Briggs v. John Yeon Co.
...an invitation to a store does not include one who accompanies a prospective purchaser on the latter's business: Murphy v. Huntley, 251 Mass. 555, 146 N.E. 710, 37 A.L.R. 1447; Fleckenstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 91 N.J.L. 145, 102 Atl. 700, L.R.A. 1918 C, 179; Petree v. Daviso......
-
Ciarmataro v. Adams
...Railway Co., 218 Mass. 76, 105 N. E. 598, L. R. A. 1915A, 510, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 893; O'Leary v. Fash, supra; Murphy v. Huntley, 251 Mass. 555, 146 N. E. 710, 37 A. L. R. 1447. It is the contention of the plaintiff that Roose was the defendant's servant and agent, that he was a caretaker of ......
-
Kelley v. Goldberg
...10 Allen, 368, 87 Am. Dec. 644;Statkunas v. L. Promboim & Son, Inc., 274 Mass. 515, 520, 174 N. E. 919;Murphy v. Huntley, 251 Mass. 555, 146 N. E. 710, 37 A. L. R. 1447, is distinguishable in its facts. The finding that the plaintiff's injury was caused by negligence of the defendants or th......