Rog v. Eltis

• Decision Date: 31 December 1929
• Citation: 269 Mass. 466,169 N.E. 413
• Parties: ROG v. ELTIS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

269 Mass. 466

169 N.E. 413

ROG

v.ELTIS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Dec. 31, 1929.

Report from Superior Court, Bristol County; Walter L. Collins, Judge.

Action by Antoinette Rog against Marcel Eltis. Verdict for plaintiff. On report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment on the verdict.

1. Automobiles k244(20)-Evidence justified finding of gross negligence of driver of automobile going in ditch, thereby injuring guest.

Evidence held sufficient to warrant finding by jury of gross negligence on part of driver of automobile, which left road and went into ditch, resulting in injuries to plaintiff, who was occupant of automobile at time.

2. Automobiles k326-Attempting to operate automobile on public way without license was crime (G. L. c. 90, s 10, as amended by St. 1923, c. 464, s 4).

It was in itself crime for driver of automobile to attempt to operate it on public way, where driver had no license to operate automobile as required by G. L. c. 90, s 10, as amended by St. 1923, c. 464, s 4.

D. R. Radovsky, of Fall River, for plaintiff.

E. Field, of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the gross negligence of the defendant while she was riding as his guest. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, having known the defendant for about a year, in response to his invitation, at about a quarter before eight of a June evening went to ride with him in his automobile; that he drove her to Taunton just for a ride and coming back parked on the side of a road off the main highway and ‘tried to make love to her’; that he attempted indecent familiarities while she was in the car; that she asked him to take her home and that he did not start but ‘tried to get around her’; that she made an attempt to get out of the automobile and walk and he pulled her in and started up; that after they got on the main highway again he started speeding; that the plaintiff ‘noticed the speedometer registering 45. I got scared and I asked him to stop going so fast’; that it was a rainy night; that it was raining at the time she threatened to get out of the car; that when she told him to slow down there was no lessening of speed and ‘he put his arm around me and tried to draw me to him but I stiffened in my seat. Then I don't remember any more’; that when the automobile was going at forty-five miles an hour, the defendant had two hands on the wheel, but when the plaintiff asked him to slow down he put one arm around her and tried to draw her to him so that he had only one hand left on the wheel; that then the automobile went off the road; that alongside the cement there was a tar road about three feet wide, and then a dirt road to the bushes; that the automobile hit some saplings that were beside the dirt part of the road and about seven or eight feet from the cement; that the automobile went off the road, hit some saplings and then the plaintiff did not remember anything until the automobile was on the other side of the road standing on its four wheels in a ditch about seven or eight feet from the cement part of the road. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries by reason of this accident. The defendant testified that he had no license to operate at the time he was driving this automobile, and that the weather was ‘kind of drizzling, kind of foggy.’ He offered some explanation of the accident but of course the jury were not bound to believe his testimony in this particular.

[1][2] This testimony, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to warrant a finding of ‘gross negligence’ on the part of the defendant within the meaning of those words as defined in Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, ...