Quigley v. Wilson Line of Mass., Inc.

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before WILKINS; RONAN
• Citation: Quigley v. Wilson Line of Mass., Inc., 154 N.E.2d 77, 338 Mass. 125, 77 A.L.R.2d 499 (Mass. 1958)
• Decision Date: 20 November 1958
• Parties: , 77 A.L.R.2d 499 Mark F. QUIGLEY v. WILSON LINE OF MASSACHUSETTS, Inc.

Page 77

154 N.E.2d 77

338 Mass. 125, 77 A.L.R.2d 499

Mark F. QUIGLEY v. WILSON LINE OF MASSACHUSETTS, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Oct. 10, 1958.

Decided Nov. 20, 1958.

Sydney M. Davis, Isaac Gordon, Boston, for plaintiff.

John J. McNaught, Esdaile, Morris & McKenney, Boston, for defendant.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.

RONAN, Justice.

This is an action of tort to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, while a passenger aboard the defendant's ship, as a result of an unprovoked assault on him by an intoxicated fellow passenger. The case was tried before a judge, sitting without jury. The defendant excepted to the refusal to give three requests. ¹

The defendant was, on June 26, 1954, the date of the alleged tort, the owner and operator of the vessel 'MV Sea Belle,' a common carrier of passengers for hire, manned and controlled by the defendant's employees and agents. On the date in question, the vessel was carrying paseengers between Nantasket and Boston and approximately one thousand passengers were aboard. On the lower deck of the vessel, the defendant operated a bar at which intoxicating beverages were sold and which was tended by five bartenders. There were also facilities for dancing. In addition to the crew, a detail of three police officers of the Boston police department had been employed by the defendant for service aboard the vessel to maintain order and 'to prevent annoyance or injury to passengers by unruly or obnoxious persons.'

The plaintiff, after paying for his passage, went aboard at Boston at about 8:30 or 8:45 in the vening of June 26, 1954, in company with his wife, her brother, one O'Brien, and O'Brien's wife. The plaintiff and his party danced or walked about the deck of the vessel until it reached Nantasket. There it was to remain until 10:30, when the return trip to Boston was to commence. O'Brien and his wife went ashore. The plaintiff and his wife stayed aboard ship, and when the return trip to Boston began, they were in the saloon section of the vessel, one deck below the main deck, where the bar was located.

Meanwhile at Nantasket the vessel had taken on additional passengers for the return trip to Boston. Two of these passengers were one Bentley and one Rumbos. Their arrival was noticed by Patrolman Sanden, one of the police officers on board, for their demeanor indicated to the officer that they were likely to be sources of trouble. These two passengers went forthwith to the saloon deck and its bar. Soon they were drunk: staggering in their movements, slurred of speech, incoherent, belligerent, and abusive. A bartender refused to serve them.

Mrs. O'Brien was near by. When Bentley and Rumbos made obscene and insulting remarks about her, O'Brien came to her rescue, to be met by a blow from Bentley as he approached. O'Brien grappled with Bentley, Rumbos joined in, and three or four others stepped in to separate the combatants. Two police officers arrived and, upon investigation, were told by a bartender that Bentley and Rumbos were the troublemakers and that he wanted them ejected. The plaintiff and his wife took no part in the melee, and did not see the blow struck.

The officers took Bentley and Rumbos by the backs of their coat collars and forcibly escorted them to an upper deck. They struggled, but despite their resistance they were led out on the starboard quarter toward the stern of the vessel and were seated upon long benches there. For five or ten minutes they remonstrated and struggled with the officers against being seated. Finally they were told that if they did not see fit to behave, the officers would 'lock them up for the night.' The officers then left Bentley and Rumbos seated alone, unattened and not under surveillance, despite their intoxicated conditions.

Shortly thereafter the plaintiff, his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien proceeded from the lower deck to an upper deck, the plaintiff leading the way, his wife behind, and the O'Briens in the rear. On reaching the upper deck, the plaintiff turned left and had taken five or six steps when Rumbos rushed at him and felled him with a blow to his right eye, causing serious injury. Bentley and Rumbos were taken into custody and booked at the police station for drunkenness and assault and battery when the vessel reached Boston.

It is the long settled law of this Commonwealth that a common carrier owes to its passengers the highest degree of care in the anticipation and prevention of violence from its employees, other passengers, and even strangers, as is consistent with the nature and operation of its business. The test is foreseeability of harm, Kuhlen v. Boston & Northern St. Ry. Co., 193 Mass. 341, 346, 79 N.E. 815, L.R.A.,N.S., 729; Glennen v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 207 Mass. 497, 498, 93 N.E. 700, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 470; Harrison v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 316 Mass. 463, 464, 55 N.E.2d 707; but the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers, nor is it obliged by law to foresee and to guard against unlikely dangers and improbable harms. Isenberg v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 221 Mass. 182, 183, 108 N.E. 1046; Sack v. Director General of Railroads, 245 Mass. 114, 139 N.E. 819; Pearson v. Director General of Railroads, 245 Mass. 158, 139 N.E. 488.

In this case there is ample factual basis to support the finding of the trial judge, implicit in his general finding, that the injury here was both foreseeable and preventable, and negligently...