(DOWNLOAD) "White v. Checker Taxi Co." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: White v. Checker Taxi Co.
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 13, 1933
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
DONAHUE, Justice. The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant as a taxicab driver, had finished his day's work at about 6.30 on the evening of the accident, had left his taxicab in the defendant's garage and had started homeward when he was struck by a taxicab of the defendant driven by another of its employees. Although there was evidence warranting a finding by the jury that the plaintiff was struck while on the premises of the defendant and inside the garage, there was other testimony which if believed would have warranted the finding that at the time of the collision the plaintiff was on the sidewalk in front of the garage and not on the defendant's premises. The defendant in its answer pleaded, and there was evidence showing, that it held a policy of insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, which policy at the time of the accident was in full force and effect. The plaintiff had made no reservation of his common law rights at the time of his employment. Since the jury might on the evidence have found that the accident occurred after the plaintiff had ended his day's work and had left his employer's premises the defendant's request for a ruling of law, in substance that the defendant's insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act barred his recovery in an action at law, was rightly denied. Bell's Case, 238 Mass. 46, 130 N.E. 67. The defendant's other request for the instruction that 'If the accident out of which it is alleged the plaintiff's accident arose occurred on the defendant's premises, the plaintiff can not recover' was in substance given in the Judge's charge as the law applicable in the circumstances stated if the jury found that the defendant had given the notice of insurance required by the act. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 22. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that shortly before the collision the taxicab which hit the plaintiff had turned off the part of the highway commonly used by vehicles and on to that portion commonly used as a sidewalk, and was headed toward the entrance to the garage, and that the plaintiff used the means of exit commonly employed by the defendant's drivers in leaving the building and had come upon the sidewalk where as a traveller he had the right to be. It was daylight and there was nothing to obstruct the view of the driver of the taxicab as he came along the street, made the turn and was crossing the sidewalk. An inference that the taxicab was driven at a considerable rate of speed might be drawn from the testimony that the plaintiff's body was thrown or rolled from the sidewalk to a point twelve or fifteen feet inside the garage upon the ramp used by entering vehicles which led upward to the second floor of the garage and the testimony that the taxicab went seventy feet up the ramp inside the garage before it stopped. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. On the evidence the ruling could not be made that there was no evidence of negligence of the driver of the taxicab.