Van Steenbergen v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 26 May 1934 |
| Citation | 286 Mass. 400,190 N.E. 597 |
| Parties | VAN STEENBERGEN v. BARRETT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; E. B. Bishop, Judge.
Action by Mary Van Steenbergen against Francis E. Barrett. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
B. J. Killion, of Boston, for plaintiff.
J. Wentworth, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff. The declaration alleged that while she was on Washington Street, in Boston, and in the exercise of due care, owing to the negligence of the defendant, his servants and agents in the operation, control and inspection of an automobile truck, a wheel came off the truck and injured her. It was admitted at the trial that at the time of the accident the driver of the truck was in the employ of the defendant and engaged in his business. It is conceded by the defendant that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care.
The rear wheels of the truck were equipped with dual wheels, one of which came off the left rear axle and rolled down the street, up onto the sidewalk, struck the plaintiff, who was looking in a store window, and knocked her down. There was evidence that each of these wheels was attached to the rear wheels of the truck by five bolts through the hubs and a nut was then placed on the outside. The truck was sold by the Hyde Park Motors, Inc., to the defendant about two months before the accident. The dual wheels were purchased from the Springfield Commercial Body Company and were applied by that company to the truck after it had been bought by the defendant on April 15, 1929. One Norton testified that he was an automobile mechanic employed by Hyde Park Motors, Inc.; that after the truck had been running about two or three weeks the driver complained about the rear wheels; that the company took them off, reset and tightened them up; that a dual wheel is two wheels ‘hooked up’ together; that the company changed the position of the tires, placing the outside tire inside the other; that before the accident the truck was brought to the service station once or twice a week to have the wheels tightened; that the nuts or bolts on the wheels continued to loosen at the hub and shear off; that the lugs had to be kept tight to prevent them shearing off, because if the bolts were cut off the wheel would fall; that he had discussed with the drivers of the truck who worked for the defendant the cause of the trouble with the wheels, and also discussed this matter with one Driscoll who was in the defendant's employ, drove the truck, and in the absence of the defendant did his general work.
The witness was permitted to state, subject to the defendant's exception, the conversation he had with Driscoll. We are of opinion that this evidence was competent. Subject to the defendant's exception the witness was also permitted to state that he had formed an opinion as to whether the truck equipped with these wheels was a safe truck to have on the highway at the time of the accident. He was then asked for his opinion and the defendant objected. He was then asked: ‘Was this wheel * * * a safe wheel to be attached, having in mind the way it was attached to this particular truck?’ His answer was ‘No.’ When requested to give his reasons for his previous answer he said: ‘This particular type of wheel, as I explained how it was attached * * * had a tendency to loosen up the lugs, and two or three lugs became loose, the truck was rolling twenty-five or thirty miles an hour, or even slower, the brakes were put on, had a tendency to shear the bolts right off.’ The admission of this testimony was not erroneous. The witness as an automobile mechanic, who was familiar with the wheels on this truck and had worked upon them, could properly have been found by the trial judge to be qualified to express an opinion respecting the matters concerning which he testified. Coulombe v. Horne Coal Co., 275 Mass. 226, 229, 175 N. E. 631;Monaghan v. Keith Oil Corp., 281 Mass. 129, 137, 183 N. E. 252.
The witness Norton further testified to a conversation he overheard between the defendant and some one in his place of business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grismore v. Consol. Prods. Co.
...Co., 40 Cal.App. 146, 180 P. 671; Coulombe v. Horne Coal Co., 275 Mass. 226, 175 N.E. 631; [5 N.W.2d 663]Van Steenbergen v. Barrett, 286 Mass. 400, 190 N.E. 597;State ex rel. v. Lindley, 232 Mo. App. 831, 113 S.W.2d 132;Vann v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 182 N.C. 567, 109 S.E. 556;Metropol......
-
Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co.
...Lemley v. Doak Gas. Engine Co., 40 Cal.App. 146, 180 P. 671; Coulombe v. Horne Coal Co., 275 Mass. 226, 175 N.E. 631; Van Steenbergen v. Barrett, 286 Mass. 400, 190 597; State ex rel. v. Lindley, 232 Mo.App. 831, 113 S.W.2d 132; Vann v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 182 N.C. 567, 109 S.E. 556......
-
Com. v. Chapin
...v. Dean, 152 Mass. 589, 590-591, 26 N.E. 406; Coulombe v. Horne Coal Co., 275 Mass. 226, 229-230, 175 N.E. 631; Van Steenbergen v. Barrett, 286 Mass. 400, 402-403, 190 N.E. 597; Frankfeld v. United States, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 679, 689; Elkins v. State, 250 Ala. 672, 675, 35 So.2d 693; People v......
-
Motor Terminal & Transportation Co. v. Millican
...that it was under no duty to inspect the truck, but had a right to assume that the truck was in a reasonably safe condition. Van Steenbergen v. Barrett, supra; Tannahill v. Depositors' Oil & Gas Co., The trial court did not err in refusing charge A-16. This court has frequently held that su......