Hawes v. Knowles

114 Mass. 518
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 114 Mass. 518 (Hawes v. Knowles) 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
Hawes v. Knowles, 114 Mass. 518 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

A master is responsible for a wrongful act done by his servant in the execution of the authority given by the master, and for the purpose of performing what the master has directed, whether the wrong done be occasioned by the mere negligence of the servant, or by a wanton and reckless purpose to accomplish the master’s business in an unlawful manner. Howe v. Newmarch, 12 Allen, 49. Ramsden v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co. 104 Mass. 117.

In an action of tort for a wilful injury to the person, the manner and manifest motive of the wrongful act may be given in evidence as affecting the question of damages, for when the merely physical injury is the same, it may be more aggravated in its effects upon the mind, if it is done in wanton disregard of the rights and feelings of the plaintiff, than if it is the result of mere carelessness. Stowe v. Heywood, 7 Allen, 118. Smith v. Holcomb, 99 Mass. 552.

. The evidence introduced at the trial, so far as it is reported in the bill of exceptions, was that the defendant’s servant, driving the defendant’s coach, drove against the wagon of the plaintiff wantonly, as well as carelessly and negligently. As applied to [520]*520this evidence, the instruction requested was rightly refused; and the instruction given, fairly construed, was only that if in the act done by the servant in the performance of his master’s business, by which the plaintiff was injured, there was wantonness or mischief on the part of the wrong-doer, which caused additional injury to the plaintiff in body or mind, it would tend to enhance the damages. Thus construed, the instruction is unexceptionable.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Staikovisky v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
33 Mass. App. Dec. 46 (Boston Municipal Court, 1965)
Burger v. Covert
135 P. 30 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Krehbiel v. Henkle
152 Iowa 604 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Farrow v. Hoffecker
79 A. 920 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1906)
Morrison v. City of Lawrence
72 N.E. 91 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Craven v. . Bloomingdale
64 N.E. 169 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Dinsmoor v. Wolber
85 Ill. App. 152 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Bowler v. O'Connell
27 L.R.A. 173 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Quigley v. Turner
22 N.E. 586 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Fogg v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
20 N.E. 109 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Pegram v. Stortz
6 S.E. 485 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1888)
Stiles v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
15 P. 712 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1887)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Whitman
79 Ala. 328 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1885)
White v. Dresser
135 Mass. 150 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Brown v. Evans
17 F. 912 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1883)
George v. Gobey
128 Mass. 289 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Levi v. Brooks
121 Mass. 501 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)
Bixby v. Dunlap
56 N.H. 456 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 Mass. 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawes-v-knowles-mass-1874.