Appeal allowed.
Affirmed in the House of Lords under the name of Mills v. Armstrong; L. R. 13 App. Cases, 1.[[229]]
SHULTZ v. OLD COLONY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, January 1, 1907.
Reported in 193 Massachusetts Reports, 309.
Tort for personal injuries caused by the collision of an electric car of defendant with a carriage in which the plaintiff was being driven.
At the trial the evidence for plaintiff tended to show that plaintiff was being driven in a carriage by her friend B; that B owned the horse and carriage and was giving her a ride to her home; that plaintiff in no way interfered with B’s driving, in no manner controlled him or directed how he should drive, but left the driving to him; and that the defendant’s car from behind, without any warning, ran into the hind wheels of the carriage.
Defendant’s evidence tended to show that the collision was due to B’s negligently turning suddenly across the track.
The judge instructed the jury (inter alia) that if B was careless in driving and if his carelessness contributed to the injury, then plaintiff was bound by his carelessness and could not recover. To this instruction plaintiff excepted.
Verdict for defendant.[[230]]
Rugg, J. This case fairly raises the question as to whether the negligence of the driver of a vehicle is to be imputed to a guest, riding with him gratuitously, and personally in the exercise of all the care which ordinary caution requires.
[The learned judge then elaborately reviewed the authorities; and, both upon authority and principle, sustained the view reached in The Bernina, ante. He then continued:]