Mockevicius v. Darois

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mockevicius v. Darois

82 N.E.2d 610, 323 Mass. 447, 1948 Mass. LEXIS 621

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 N.E.2d 610 (Mockevicius v. Darois) 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

Mockevicius v. Darois, 82 N.E.2d 610, 323 Mass. 447, 1948 Mass. LEXIS 621 (Mass. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Williams, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries received in the collision of two automobiles in Lawrence on September 30, 1947. The plaintiff was a guest passenger in one of the automobiles, which was operated by Sauerman, a fellow employee of the plaintiff, who, at the plaintiff’s request, was driving him home after work. The other automobile was driven by the defendant Darois. The bill of exceptions contains no description of the accident. After a verdict for the defendant the plaintiff excepted to a portion of the judge’s charge and to the refusal of the judge, on request, to rule “that the plaintiff Mockevicius is not guilty of negligence, merely because he had abandoned his care to the driver, if he had no reason to fear incompetency or carelessness on the part of the driver, even though the driver of the car was negligent at the time of the accident.” This ruling should have been given unless its subject matter was covered adequately by the judge’s charge. [448]*448O’Brien v. Janelle, 321 Mass. 316. Thereafter the judge instructed the jury as follows: "if Mockevicius hasn’t abandoned his safety into Sauerman’s hands and if Mockevicius hasn’t been guilty himself of contributory negligence, then he can recover. . . . Let me repeat it. If Mockevicius hasn’t abandoned himself into Sauerman’s hands — by in •fact making Sauerman the agent for his safety, if he hasn’t been guilty of contributory negligence by not warning, if he should have under the circumstance, Sauerman of approaching danger, or doing the thing that any ordinary normal person would, if he hasn’t been guilty of that, then even though the taxi driver Sauerman may be guilty of contributory negligence and Darois guilty of negligence, he can recover.” The charge conditioned the plaintiff’s right to recover on both absence of abandonment of care for his safety to Sauerman and lack of contributory negligence. This was error.

On the case as presented the plaintiff was entitled to recover if negligence of the defendant contributed to cause the plaintiff’s injuries and he, the plaintiff, was not lacking in due care. Bessey v. Salemme, 302 Mass. 188, 210. O’Brien v. Janelle, 321 Mass. 316.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Williams, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries received in the collision of two automobiles in Lawrence on September 30, 1947. The plaintiff was a guest passenger in one of the automobiles, which was operated by Sauerman, a fellow employee of the plaintiff, who, at the plaintiff’s request, was driving him home after work. The other automobile was driven by the defendant Darois. The bill of exceptions contains no description of the accident. After a verdict for the defendant the plaintiff excepted to a portion of the judge’s charge and to the refusal of the judge, on request, to rule “that the plaintiff Mockevicius is not guilty of negligence, merely because he had abandoned his care to the driver, if he had no reason to fear incompetency or carelessness on the part of the driver, even though the driver of the car was negligent at the time of the accident.” This ruling should have been given unless its subject matter was covered adequately by the judge’s charge. [448]*448O’Brien v. Janelle, 321 Mass. 316. Thereafter the judge instructed the jury as follows: "if Mockevicius hasn’t abandoned his safety into Sauerman’s hands and if Mockevicius hasn’t been guilty himself of contributory negligence, then he can recover. . . . Let me repeat it. If Mockevicius hasn’t abandoned himself into Sauerman’s hands — by in •fact making Sauerman the agent for his safety, if he hasn’t been guilty of contributory negligence by not warning, if he should have under the circumstance, Sauerman of approaching danger, or doing the thing that any ordinary normal person would, if he hasn’t been guilty of that, then even though the taxi driver Sauerman may be guilty of contributory negligence and Darois guilty of negligence, he can recover.” The charge conditioned the plaintiff’s right to recover on both absence of abandonment of care for his safety to Sauerman and lack of contributory negligence. This was error.

On the case as presented the plaintiff was entitled to recover if negligence of the defendant contributed to cause the plaintiff’s injuries and he, the plaintiff, was not lacking in due care. Bessey v. Salemme, 302 Mass. 188, 210. O’Brien v. Janelle, 321 Mass. 316.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.E.2d 610, 323 Mass. 447, 1948 Mass. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mockevicius-v-darois-mass-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack