Phillips v. Gookin
Decision Date | 14 November 1918 |
Citation | 231 Mass. 250 |
Parties | ANNA C. PHILLIPS v. JAMES N. GOOKIN. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Present: RUGG, C J., LORING, BRALEY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Practice, Civil Verdict. Evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof. Negligence. Motor Vehicle.
Mere disbelief of testimony is not the equivalent of evidence to the contrary.
In an action for personal injuries sustained by being struck by a motor car of the defendant, proof that the defendant owned the car without any evidence that he was in control of it or that the person driving it was his servant, does not entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury.
TORT for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a woman seventy years of age, by reason of being struck by a motor car of the defendant, alleged to have been driven negligently by a servant of the defendant, on Columbus Avenue near Holyoke Street in Boston at about half past ten o'clock on the evening of September 10, 1915. Writ dated September 17, 1915.
In the Superior Court the case was tried before Hitchcock, J. The evidence is described in the opinion. At the close of the evidence the defendant filed a motion asking the judge to order a verdict for the defendant. The judge denied the motion. The defendant also asked the judge to rule that upon all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The judge refused to make this ruling and submitted the case to the jury with special questions, which with the answers of the jury were as follows:
The jury answered "No."
The jury answered, "Yes."
The jury answered, "Yes."
The jury answered, "$300."
The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $300; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
T. J. Shea, for the defendant. I. H. Fox, for the plaintiff.
BY THE COURT. This is an action to recover compensation for personal injuries received by the plaintiff from being struck by an automobile. The testimony in the case was to the effect that the defendant, being the owner, had let the use of the automobile to one Hayden, who was driving and who was not then and never had been a servant of the defendant. If this testimony was believed, the defendant was not answerable for the wrong of the driver, Herlihy v. Smith,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...fasten on the owner liability for its negligent operation. Trombley v. Stevens-Duryea Co., 206 Mass. 516, 92 N. E. 764;Phillips v. Gookin. 231 Mass. 250, 120 N. E. 691. Such a rule of the common law may be changed by statute. Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370, 380, 119 N. E.......
-
Posey v. Krogh
...118 N. E. 665. Something more than mere ownership is necessary to establish agency between the lender and the borrower (Phillips v. Gookin, 231 Mass. 250, 120 N. E. 691); mere borrowing does not establish this relationship (Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 179 P. 697), it is ......
- Mailman v. Record Foundry & Mach. Co.
-
McDonough v. Vozzela
...v. Director General of Railroads, 244 Mass. 122, 138 N. E. 538;Porcino v. De Stefano, 243 Mass. 398, 137 N. E. 664;Phillips v. Gookin, 231 Mass. 250, 120 N. E. 691. But it is familiar law that the jury are not bound to give credit to testimony even though uncontradicted. Lindenbaum v. New Y......