Niland v. Cox
| Decision Date | 04 June 1957 |
| Citation | 336 Mass. 169,142 N.E.2d 895 |
| Parties | George H. NILAND, Junior, v. Donald COX and another. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert R. Clark, Boston, for plaintiff.
Walter F. Henneberry, Boston (Arthur L. Brown, Boston, with him), for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.
This action is to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while a guest passenger in an automobile owned by the defendant Cox and operated by the defendant Moran. A verdict for the plaintiff was returned against each defendant. The judge under leave reserved entered verdicts for the defendants, and the plaintiff excepted. His exceptions having been lost by failure to comply with certain procedural requirements, the question of the correctness of the action of the judge in entering the verdicts is submitted to us on report.
There was evidence that about 8:30 p. m. on April 24, 1949, Cox, accompanied by Moran, the plaintiff and one Tully drove from West Roxbury, where all four lived, in Cox' automobile, a two-door sedan, to a social club in Cambridge. They remained there three hours, during which time all drank beer. Moran according to the plaintiff consumed twelve or thirteen glasses. On leaving for home Moran operated the automobile at the request or with the consent of Cox and the plaintiff sat beside him in the front seat. Moran drove through Pearl Street which runs from Central Square in the direction of the Charles River and Cottage Farm Bridge. Moran was not familiar with the street which was poorly lighted and had several intersections. The plaintiff testified that the pavement was wet from a recent rain and that for a distance of one half mile Moran, although told by the plaintiff that he was going too fast, drove at a 'constant' speed of from forty-five to fifty miles per hour. It appeared that Pearl Street did not continue through to Memorial Drive, the road which skirts the river on the Cambridge side, but ended at a cross street called Granite Street. The plaintiff, in his testimony, said that while looking ahead he saw the further curb of Granite Street ten or twelve feet away; that he said, "Look out' and spontaneously turned to look at Moran and observed him looking toward the back seat of the car. By the time Moran swung his head around and before he had a chance to apply the brakes, the car hit the curbstone.' The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hannon v. Hayes-Bickford Lunch System, Inc.
...v. O'Connell & Lee Mfg. Co., 334 Mass. 646, 650-651, 138 N.E.2d 126; Goldberg v. Norton Co., 335 Mass. ----, 141 N.E.2d 377; Niland v. Cox, Mass., 142 N.E.2d 895. I infer from the facts recited in the report that the plaintiff's injuries were caused not by the crack on the step but by the r......
-
Price v. Cole
...been evidence of intoxication and the jury could consider intoxication as a factor in determining negligence. See Niland v. Cox, 336 Mass. 169, 171, 142 N.E.2d 895 (1957); Petras v. Storm, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 330, 335-336, 465 N.E.2d 283 (1984). There was a more direct reason for isolating the ......
-
Bagley v. Burkholder
...v. Pelczarski, 333 Mass. 730, 733, 133 N.E.2d 215; Sutherland v. Seardino, 334 Mass. 178, 182, 134 N.E.2d 444. Compare Niland v. Cox, 336 Mass. ----, 142 N.E.2d 895; Doherty v. Spano, 336 Mass. ----, 146 N.E.2d 671. Recovery can be had here only if the evidence warranted the jury in finding......
-
Shepard v. Roussel
...Bruno v. Donahue, 305 Mass. 30, 32-36, 24 N.E.2d 761; Lalumiere v. Miele, 337 Mass. 339, 340-341, 149 N.E.2d 365. Cf. Niland v. Cox, 336 Mass. 169, 170-171, 142 N.E.2d 895; Pistorio v. Williams Buick, Inc., Mass., 167 N.E.2d 850, (Mass.Adv.Sh. [1960] 859, Exceptions overruled. ...