Osterlind v. Hill
Decision Date | 03 March 1928 |
Citation | 263 Mass. 73,160 N.E. 301 |
Parties | OSTERLIND v. HILL. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Alonzo R. Weed, Judge.
Action by Albert Osterlind, as administrator of the estate of Albert T. Osterlind, against Harold J. Hill, in which the trial court sustained demurrers to the original and amended declarations. On report. Orders affirmed.
F. W. Campbell, of Boston, for plaintiff.
C. L. Allen, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort, brought by the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Albert T. Osterlind to recover damages for the conscious suffering and death of his intestate. There are four counts in the original declaration and five counts in the amended declaration, to each of which the defendant demurred. The first count of the original declaration alleges that, on or about July 4, 1925, the defendant was engaged in the business of letting for hire pleasure boats and canoes to be used on Lake Quannapowitt in the town of Wakefield; that it was the duty of the defendant to have a reasonable regard for the safety of the persons to whom he let boats and canoes; that the defendant, in the early morning of July 4, 1925, in willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of the natural and probable consequences, let for hire, to the intestate and one Ryan, a frail and dangerous canoe, well knowing that the intestate and Ryan were then intoxicated, and were then manifestly unfit to go upon the like in the canoe; that, in consequence of the defendant's willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of his duties, the intestate and Ryan went out in the canoe, which shortly afterwards was overturned and the intestate, after hanging to it for approximately one-half hour, and making loud calls for assistance, which calls the defendant heard and utterly ignored, was obliged to release his hold, and was drowned; that in consequence of the defendant's willful, wanton, or reckless conduct the intestate endured great conscious mental anguish and great conscious physical suffering from suffocation and drowning. Count 2 differs materially from count 1 only in so far as negligent conduct is alleged as distinguished from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. In count 3 the acts of the defendant set forth in the previous counts are relied upon as stating a cause of action for death as a result of the defendant's willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. The amended declaration adds allegations to the effect that the plaintiff's intestate and Ryan were intoxicated and incapacitated to enter into any valid contract or to exercise any care for their own safety and that the condition of the intestate was involuntary and induced through no fault of his own.
The trial court sustained demurrers to both the original and amended declarations and reported the case for the determination of this court.
The basis of any recovery, therefore, must be the statutory provisions providing for the survival of certain actions. See G. L. c. 229, § 5, St. 1922, c. 439, and St. 1925, c. 346, § 9. The declaration must set forth facts which, if proved, establish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority
...(footnotes omitted).' 7 Cases such as Griswold v. Boston & Maine R.R., 183 Mass. 434, 437, 67 N.E. 354 (1903), and Osterlind v. Hill, 263 Mass. 73, 76, 160 N.E. 301 (1928), cited above, are thus no longer to be b. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1973) 871, 885. c. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1973) at 885, fn. 7. 8 In the ......
-
Mayor v. Azar
...has in any sense "imped[ed]," "interfer[ed]," or "creat[ed] unreasonable barriers" to that person's rescue. See Osterlind v. Hill , 263 Mass. 73, 76, 160 N.E. 301 (1928) ; see also, e.g. , Sidwell v. McVay , 282 P.2d 756, 758-59 (Okla. 1955) (failure to stop a child from playing with explos......
-
Rakes v. U.S., No. CIV.A.02-10480-WGY.
...in a pond may have a moral obligation to extend a helping hand, but he does not necessarily have a legal obligation to do so. Osterlind v. Hill, 263 Mass. 73 ... (1928) ... Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314 ("The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is n......
-
Edwards v. Honeywell, Inc., 94-2346
...him at negligible cost--the plaintiff could not obtain damages. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959); Osterlind v. Hill, 263 Mass. 73, 160 N.E. 301 (1928); Handiboe v. McCarthy, 114 Ga.App. 541, 151 S.E.2d 905 (1966). This limitation on the scope of the duty of care has stood bu......
-
Two Approaches to Equality, with Implications for Grutter.
...10 HARV. L. Rev. 457, 158 (1897). (49.) See, e.g., James Barr Ames, Law and Morals, 22 HARV. L. Rev. 97, 111-13 (1908); Osterlind v. Hill, 160 N.E. 301 (Mass. 1928) (holding no duty to rescue drowning person pleading for (50.) See, e.g., William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Salvors, F......
-
Justice for Hedgehogs.
...split" turn out to be illuminating in that light. (19.) See DON HERZOG, CUNNING (2006). (20.) My favorite example is Osterlind v. Hill, 160 N.E. 301 (Mass. (21.) Robert Nozick's Moral Complications and Moral Structures remains useful. See ROBERT NOZICK, Moral Complications and Moral Structu......