(Download) "Squires v. Fraska" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Squires v. Fraska
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 30, 1938
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
FIELD, Chief Justice. This is an action of tort brought under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 229, § 5, for the death of the plaintiff's son and intestate, caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a public way by the defendant, Charles Fraska. There was evidence that the intestate while riding in a motor vehicle was killed instantly by a collision on a public way between that motor vehicle and another operated by the defendant. Though the declaration does not allege specifically that the motor vehicle operated by the defendant was not legally registered, the plaintiff sought to recover on the ground that it was not so registered. And properly it is not questioned that under such a declaration recovery may be had for death caused by the operation on a public way of a motor vehicle not legally registered. Such operation is at least evidence of negligence. Capano v. Melchionno, Mass., 7 N.E.2d 593, and cases cited. There was a verdict for the defendant. With exceptions not here material, a motor vehicle to be legally registered must be registered in the name of 'the owner thereof.' G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 90, § 2. It was undisputed that the motor vehicle operated by the defendant was registered in the name of Catherine V. Ross. There was evidence that she was the sole owner thereof, that neither her husband, James Ross, nor the defendant owned any part of it, and that the defendant did not pay any part of the purchase price therefor. But there was also evidence that this motor vehicle was owned by James Ross and the defendant, each having paid one half of the purchase price, and that it was registered 'in the name of Catherine Ross for convenience and for security although she didn't own it.' The defendant, however, testified that 'it was registered to Catherine V. Ross and that she owned it * * * [and that] immediately on its purchase * * * he drove it to his yard where it was to be kept, that since its purchase it had been kept at all times in his yard, that it was used in the business of spraying trees in which he and James Ross were partners, that he had the right to use it at all times for his personal business without notice to Catherine V. Ross and did so use it, that Catherine V. Ross procured the insurance and the defendant paid for part of the insurance on it for the use of it, and he was not specially charged for particular trips.' The plaintiff requested the trial Judge to instruct the jury that 'If the jury finds that the defendant had any proprietary interest in the truck, either alone or jointly with another or others then it was illegally registered and your verdict must be for the plaintiff in the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.' The Judge, however, failed to instruct the jury as requested, except as the requested instruction was given in his charge, and the plaintiff excepted. No other exception to the charge was taken and at 'the time of taking the exception the plaintiff did not call to the attention of the presiding Judge in what respect the charge differed from the request.' The case comes before us on a report of the trial Judge 'for determination of the question whether there was error prejudicial to the plaintiff and requiring a new trial, in * * * failure to give the requested instruction in terms. If there was, a new trial may be ordered; Otherwise, judgment on the verdict to be ordered.' No other question is reported.
 "Squires v. Fraska" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}