Skerry v. Rich
| Decision Date | 27 November 1917 |
| Citation | 228 Mass. 462 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | FREDERICK G. SKERRY v. SEWELL M. RICH & another. |
October 17, 1917.
Present: RUGG, C J., BRALEY, DE COURCY, & PIERCE, JJ.
Agency. Municipal Corporations, Fire department.
Public Officer.
Where the chief of the fire department of a city was being carried to a fire in a motor car operated by a member of the fire department, who while not acting under the personal direction or orders of his chief, lost control of the car through his negligence in driving it at an excessive rate of speed, and the car crossing the sidewalk of a public street, struck and injured a traveller thereon, the traveller cannot recover damages for his injuries from the chief of the fire department, the member of the fire department whose negligence caused the injury not being an employee or agent of such chief.
TORT against Sewell M. Rich and Harold Butler, respectively the chief of the fire department of Somerville and a member of that department, for personal injuries sustained on the evening of May 23, 1913 when the plaintiff was travelling on foot on the sidewalk of Cutter Street in Somerville, by being run into by a motor car in which both of the defendants, as alleged, were driving negligently at an excessive and unreasonable rate of speed. Writ dated December 4, 1914.
In the Superior Court the case was tried before Keating, J. It was stated in the report that "both defendants were acting in discharge of their duties as public officers at the time of the accident."
In answer to a special question submitted to them by the judge the jury found that the defendant Butler was negligent. By order of the judge the jury returned a verdict for the defendant Rich. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $433.83, and at the request of the plaintiff the judge reported for determination by this court the question whether the ordering of the verdict for the defendant Rich was right, with the stipulation that, if the judge's action in ordering that verdict was correct, judgment was to be entered for the defendant Rich on the verdict. If the ordering of the verdict was erroneous, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff against both the defendants in the sum found by the jury against the defendant Butler.
W. P. Murray, for the plaintiff. F. P. Garland, for the defendants.
The plaintiff having obtained a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shirkey v. Keokuk Cnty.
...be held liable to one injured by it, as well when in the performance of a public duty as when otherwise engaged.’ In Skerry v. Rich, 228 Mass. 462, 117 N.E. 824, it was said: ‘A public officer undoubtedly is liable for personal acts of misfeasance.’ In Perkins v. Blauth, 163 Cal. 782, 127 P......
-
Shirkey v. Keokuk County
...be held liable to one injured by it, as well when in the performance of a public duty as when otherwise engaged.’ In Skerry v. Rich, 228 Mass. 462, 117 N.E. 824, was said: ‘ A public officer undoubtedly is liable for personal acts of misfeasance.’ In Perkins v. Blauth, 163 Cal. 782, 127 P. ......
-
Alma L. Palmer v. Howard Marceille
...... bridge while the draw was open, and was liable for any. negligence in this respect to any person injured thereby was. approved. In Skerry v. Rich, 228 Mass. 462,. 117 N.E. 824, it is said that: "A public officer. undoubtedly is liable for personal acts of misfeasance.". And in Rowley ......
-
Patterson v. Barnes
...in a joint enterprise? Either proposition is unsound and inconsistent with established principles of the law of agency. See Skerry v. Rich, 228 Mass. 462; Ducey Brunell, 250 Mass. 114 , 117; Cargill v. Bower, 10 Ch. D. 502, at page 514. Compare Slowik v. Union Street Railway, 282 Mass. 249;......