Rasmussen v. Whipple
| Decision Date | 23 May 1912 |
| Parties | RASMUSSEN v. WHIPPLE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Gibbs & Pratt, of Boston, for plaintiff.
H. F Hurlburt and H. F. Hurlburt, Jr., both of Boston, for defendant.
DE COURCY, J.
The plaintiff's intestate, a boy of 12 years of age, while selling papers on the easterly roadway of Blue Hill avenue near Mattapan square, was struck by the defendant's automobile and killed. At the time of the accident the defendant was in the automobile, and the driver acted immediately under his direction. Accordingly the gross negligence of the employé becomes immaterial, and it is conceded that the plaintiff is obliged to show only ordinary negligence on the part of the defendant or his driver. R. L c. 171, § 2.
Near the place of the accident passengers traveling on electric cars from Brockton, Canton and Hyde Park change cars for Boston, and many people were standing or moving in the roadway as the automobile approached. There was evidence upon which the jury could find that it was being driven at a rapid rate of speed, one witness stating that it was going 18 or 20 miles an hour, and another that it ran 75 or 80 feet beyond the place of the accident although it could be stopped in its own length when going at the rate of 10 miles. It does not appear that the automobile was 'approaching a crossing of intersecting ways, or * * * traversing a crossing or intersection of ways,' and the statutory provision making a rate of eight miles an hour prima facie evidence of negligence does not apply. But it by no means follows that the driver had a license to travel at a speed of even eight miles an hour under the circumstances disclosed. Every person operating a motor vehicle on our ways must run it at a rate of speed that is 'reasonable and proper having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public.' And the jury would be warranted in finding that it was in fact negligent to run the automobile at this place and under the circumstances then existing, at a speed of eight miles or even less. The statute then in force, which was similar to the present one, did not relieve the driver of the automobile from exercising reasonable care to avoid injuring other travelers with equal rights on the public ways. Sts. 1906, c 412, s. 1; 1909, c. 534, s. 16. Trombley v Stevens-Duryea Co., 206 Mass. 516, 92 N.E. 764; Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 209 Mass. 24, 95 N.E. 214. There was testimony that the signal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hornbuckle v. McCarty
...181 Mo.App. 183; Spivack v. Bakery Co., 214 S.W. 166; Rowe v. Hammond, 172 Mo.App. 203; Hopfinger v. Young, 179 S.W. 747; Rasmussen v. Whipple, 211 Mass. 546; Nelligan v. Fountain, 225 Mass. 329; Berry Automobiles (3 Ed.) sec. 468; Akers v. Fulkerson, 153 Ky. 228; Deputy v. Kimmell, 73 W.Va......
-
Moser v. East St. Louis & Interurban Water Co.
...was properly submitted to the jury. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonald, 152 U.S. 262, 14 S.Ct. 619, 38 L.Ed. 434;Rasmussen v. Whipple, 211 Mass. 546, 98 N.E. 592;Lorence v. City of Ellensburgh, 13 Wash. 341, 43 P. 20,52 Am.St.Rep. 42.' In the case of Deming v. City of Chicago, 321 Ill. 3......
-
Maskaliunas v. Chicago & W.I.R. Co.
...was properly submitted to the jury. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonald, 152 U. S. 262, 14 S. Ct. 619, 38 L. Ed. 434;Rasmussen v. Whipple, 211 Mass. 546, 98 N. E. 592;Lorence v. City of Ellensburgh, 13 Wash. 341, 43 P. 20,52 Am. St. Rep. 42. What we have said in consideration of other que......
-
Hennessey v. Moynihan
...the request of the defendant for the ruling that there was no evidence of negligence on his part was refused rightly. Rasmussen v. Whipple, 211 Mass. 546, 548, 98 N. E. 592;Tripp v. Taft, 219 Mass. 81, 84, 106 N. E. 578;Lambert v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 240 Mass. 495, 500, 13......