Fox v. Earnshaw

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fox v. Earnshaw

227 N.E.2d 506, 352 Mass. 781

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 5, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 227 N.E.2d 506 (Fox v. Earnshaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. Earnshaw, 227 N.E.2d 506, 352 Mass. 781 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of tort for personal injuries and consequential damages, based on the defendant’s alleged gross negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle in which the plaintiffs were passengers, the judge entered verdicts for the defendant under leave reserved. G. L. c. 231, § 120. There was no error. The roadway, in Methuen, was thirty feet wide, straight, clear and dry; there was no traffic; the view was unobstructed. There was testimony that the defendant, while the car was moving “around 45 to 50 miles per hour,” looked backward and out the left window and had only his right hand on the wheel. The undisputed maximum distance which the vehicle traveled on the street to reach the point of collision (a pole) was 150-200 [782]*782feet. Of the four “more common indicia of gross negligence” stated by Qua, J. in Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 294 Mass. 170, 172, we need consider only the “evidence of deliberate inattention.” The factors of speed and distance as testified, considered together, indicate that either the estimated speed was greatly exaggerated or the duration of the operator’s inattention was merely momentary at a place which was not one “of great and immediate danger.” See Dinardi v. Herook, 328 Mass. 572, 574. The judge rightly concluded that the most favorable evidence viewed as a whole does not disclose the “shocking indifference to safe driving” which characterizes gross negligence. Lalumiere v. Miele, 337 Mass. 339, 341.

Fredric S. O’Brien for the plaintiffs. Alfred Sigel for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In this action of tort for personal injuries and consequential damages, based on the defendant’s alleged gross negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle in which the plaintiffs were passengers, the judge entered verdicts for the defendant under leave reserved. G. L. c. 231, § 120. There was no error. The roadway, in Methuen, was thirty feet wide, straight, clear and dry; there was no traffic; the view was unobstructed. There was testimony that the defendant, while the car was moving “around 45 to 50 miles per hour,” looked backward and out the left window and had only his right hand on the wheel. The undisputed maximum distance which the vehicle traveled on the street to reach the point of collision (a pole) was 150-200 [782]*782feet. Of the four “more common indicia of gross negligence” stated by Qua, J. in Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 294 Mass. 170, 172, we need consider only the “evidence of deliberate inattention.” The factors of speed and distance as testified, considered together, indicate that either the estimated speed was greatly exaggerated or the duration of the operator’s inattention was merely momentary at a place which was not one “of great and immediate danger.” See Dinardi v. Herook, 328 Mass. 572, 574. The judge rightly concluded that the most favorable evidence viewed as a whole does not disclose the “shocking indifference to safe driving” which characterizes gross negligence. Lalumiere v. Miele, 337 Mass. 339, 341.

Fredric S. O’Brien for the plaintiffs. Alfred Sigel for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 N.E.2d 506, 352 Mass. 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-earnshaw-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack