Randolph v. Five Guys From Boston, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1968 |
| Parties | Allen RANDOLPH v. FIVE GUYS FROM BOSTON, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Charles W. O'Brien, Boston, for defendant.
Daniel S. Fram, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTERMORE, CUTTER KIRK, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
In this action of tort for negligence the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, a minor, against the defendant whose alleged employee gave the plaintiff a pressurized can of whipped cream which later exploded in the plaintiff's face in circumstances to be stated. The case is before us on the defendant's exceptions to the denial of its motions for a directed verdict and for the entry of a verdict under leave reserved.
To test the validity of the defendant's exceptions we summarize and view the evidence in light most favorable to the plaintiff. Howes v. Kelman,326 Mass. 696, 96 N.E.2d 394; Carr v. Arthur D. Little, Inc., 348 Mass. 469, 471, 204 N.E.2d 466. The defendant was engaged in the sale and operation of mobile ice cream units. It conducted its business under the name and style of 'Ollie Orbit Mobile Ice Cream Units.' G.L. c. 110, § 5. The business address of the defendant as gived by its manager was 310 Columbia Road in the Dorchester district of Boston. The trucks of the defendant carry pressurized cans or steel shells of whipped cream. The cans are six inches high and three inches in diameter. A separate detachable rubber nozzle about two inches long with a pin which fits into the hole of the spigot of the can is used to release the cream from the can.
About 9 A.M. on August 30, 1960, the plaintiff, then fourteen years old, and a friend were riding bicycles on Ceylon Street, which runs from Columbia Road to Quincy Street in Dorchester. A large ice cream truck was stalled on the side of the street. The lower half of the truck was red, the upper half was white and the words 'Ollie Orbit' were written in blue lettering on the side. A man yelled out the window of the truck that he would give the boys some ice cream if they pushed him and got him started. The boys helped push the truck for eighty feet and the motor started. The man thanked them, went into the truck and came out with two cans and gave one to each. Although there was soft ice cream in the truck made from a mix in a machine, the man did not give them ice cream but instead gave them cans of whipped cream. He did not give them rubber nozzles or any instructions on how to remove the contents from the cans. The driver wore a white shirt and black bow tie and a little badge with 'Ollie Orbit' on it. Across the street from the point where the boys first met the man there was a garage with five 'Ollie Orbit' trucks in it.
The plaintiff took the can home and placed it in the refrigerator. At the top of the can there was something that looked like a cover. At its edge there was a little protrusion or knob. Later, on the same day the plaintiff's mother unsuccessfully tried to open the can. The plaintiff himself tried every possible way to open it. He tried to unscrew the top. He tried to pry it open with a can opener. He tried to puncture a hole with a beer can opener. Then he took a hammer and went to the porch where he hit the can three or four times. It blew up, injuring him. The plaintiff had never seen that kind of can before the accident. Since the accident he has seen that kind of can on a soda fountain.
1. At the outset, we observe that we are not here necessarily concerned with the ownership of a vehicle in order to impose liability on the defendant, as was the case in Cochrane v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 281 Mass. 386, 183 N.E. 757, cited and relied upon by the defendant. The vehicle in the case before us was not the cause of the plaintiff's injury. Nor are we primarily concerned with the personal identity of the operator of the vehicle in order to impose liability upon him as was the case in Deutsch v. Ormsby, Mass., 238 N.E.2d 339, a also relied upon by the defendant. Our initial and main inquiry is whether the operator of the particular mobile ice cream unit could, on all the evidence, be found to be an employee of the defendant. There are several factors which bear upon the issue. These, weighed collectively, justify a finding that he was. Specifically the vehicle was a special purpose vehicle of the particular kind which was admittedly used by the defendant in one of its principal business activities. The driver of the particular vehicle wore a badge bearing a name identical with the name on the truck and he was physically present with the truck during his dealings with the plaintiff. The uncommon trade name 'Ollie Orbit' on the badge, the truck and the defendant's business certificate tended to link the driver, the truck and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority
...favorable to the plaintiffs. Carr v. Arthur D. Little, Inc., 348 Mass. 469, 471, 204 N.E.2d 466 (1965); Randolph v. Five Guys From Boston, Inc., 354 Mass. 730, 731, 242 N.E.2d 402 (1968). 1. The Direction of Verdicts for Westinghouse. The plaintiffs argue that Westinghouse should have fores......
-
Panesis v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co.
...N.E.2d 466 (1965). Lee v. Allied Sports Associates, Inc., 349 Mass. 544, 545, 209 N.E.2d 329 (1965). Rendolph v. Five Guys From Boston, Inc., 354 Mass. 730, 731, 242 N.E.2d 402 (1968). It is not error to deny a motion for a directed verdict 'if there can be found anywhere in the entire evid......
-
McLaughlin v. Bernstein
...implicit in the jury's verdicts. Kelly v. Railway Exp. Agency, Inc., 315 Mass. 301, 302, 52 N.E.2d 411. Randolph v. Five Guys from Boston, Inc., Mass., 242 N.E.2d 402. There was no On the evidence the jury could find that Bernstein was in control of the only means at or near the landing to ......
-
Lawrence v. Kamco, Inc.
...outside the lounge. Martin v. Reis, 344 Mass. 32, 36, 181 N.E.2d 580 (1962), and cases cited. Randolph v. Five Guys from Boston, Inc., 354 Mass. 730, 734, 242 N.E.2d 402 (1968). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 442A (1965). In such an event, the jury could have found that repair of the windo......