Mayer v. Rockett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mayer v. Rockett

283 N.E.2d 836, 362 Mass. 22, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 750

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 2, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 N.E.2d 836 (Mayer v. Rockett) 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

Mayer v. Rockett, 283 N.E.2d 836, 362 Mass. 22, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 750 (Mass. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Reardon, J.

In these actions of tort for conscious suffering and wrongful death and property damage, the defendants Frederick E. Rockett and Rita P. Fiore have excepted to the denial of their motions for directed verdicts, and in addition allege error in the admission of certain evidence to which exception was taken. The pertinent facts are these. Acting under instruction of his employer, the defendant Rita Fiore, the defendant Rockett stopped a school bus he was driving in the right hand lane of a three lane State highway under a darkened underpass for,the purpose of picking up passengers. The plaintiff Phyllis Mayer’s deceased husband, Robert Mayer, stopped his car in the middle lane behind the bus, and the plaintiff Margaret E. Trudelle’s deceased husband, John Trudelle, driving a tractor-trailer tank heavily laden with gasoline, approached the parked vehicles. Upon its approach, with its brakes on, the tractor-trailer gasoline truck jackknifed and covered the area with flaming gasoline which fatally burned Mayer and Trudelle. The defendant Rockett at the time was not licensed to operate a school bus as required by G. L. c. 90, § 8A. Article II, 1, of the Rules and Regulations for Driving on State Highways prohibits parking or standing of any vehicle on any street, way, or highway under the control of the Department of Public Works, while art. IIA, 1 (m), prohibits any vehicle from standing or parking in any State highway underpass. The jury could properly have found that the defendants Frederick Rockett and Rita Fiore were negligent. Their violation of the statute and regulations cited was not only evidence of negligence but also could properly have been found to be a proximate cause of the accident which occurred. Mil-bury v. Turner Centre Sys. 274 Mass. 358, 361, and cases cited. See Leveillee v. Wright, 300 Mass. 382, 387-389, and cases cited. Other exceptions brought here by the [24]*24defendants Rockett and Rita Fiore are without merit. They involve either judicial discretion, of which we find no abuse (Murray v. Foster, 343 Mass. 655, 657), or the admission in evidence of testimony properly admitted because of its bearing on the issue of the defendants’ culpability (Boott Mills v. Boston & Maine R.R. 218 Mass. 582, 585).

Exceptions overruled.

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

Reardon, J.

In these actions of tort for conscious suffering and wrongful death and property damage, the defendants Frederick E. Rockett and Rita P. Fiore have excepted to the denial of their motions for directed verdicts, and in addition allege error in the admission of certain evidence to which exception was taken. The pertinent facts are these. Acting under instruction of his employer, the defendant Rita Fiore, the defendant Rockett stopped a school bus he was driving in the right hand lane of a three lane State highway under a darkened underpass for,the purpose of picking up passengers. The plaintiff Phyllis Mayer’s deceased husband, Robert Mayer, stopped his car in the middle lane behind the bus, and the plaintiff Margaret E. Trudelle’s deceased husband, John Trudelle, driving a tractor-trailer tank heavily laden with gasoline, approached the parked vehicles. Upon its approach, with its brakes on, the tractor-trailer gasoline truck jackknifed and covered the area with flaming gasoline which fatally burned Mayer and Trudelle. The defendant Rockett at the time was not licensed to operate a school bus as required by G. L. c. 90, § 8A. Article II, 1, of the Rules and Regulations for Driving on State Highways prohibits parking or standing of any vehicle on any street, way, or highway under the control of the Department of Public Works, while art. IIA, 1 (m), prohibits any vehicle from standing or parking in any State highway underpass. The jury could properly have found that the defendants Frederick Rockett and Rita Fiore were negligent. Their violation of the statute and regulations cited was not only evidence of negligence but also could properly have been found to be a proximate cause of the accident which occurred. Mil-bury v. Turner Centre Sys. 274 Mass. 358, 361, and cases cited. See Leveillee v. Wright, 300 Mass. 382, 387-389, and cases cited. Other exceptions brought here by the [24]*24defendants Rockett and Rita Fiore are without merit. They involve either judicial discretion, of which we find no abuse (Murray v. Foster, 343 Mass. 655, 657), or the admission in evidence of testimony properly admitted because of its bearing on the issue of the defendants’ culpability (Boott Mills v. Boston & Maine R.R. 218 Mass. 582, 585).

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 N.E.2d 836, 362 Mass. 22, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-rockett-mass-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack