标题: A Take-Your-Young-Brother-to-Work Day [打印本页] 作者: choi 时间: 2-25-2016 10:39 标题: A Take-Your-Young-Brother-to-Work Day 本帖最后由 choi 于 2-25-2016 15:36 编辑
My comment:
(a) Located in Hamilton, NY is Colgate University, which was established 1819 and whose founding trustees included William Colgate who in 1806 at age 23 founded a toothpaste and soap company.
(b) The details of the mishap is vivid, though the visit was more than half a century ago. (Mr Bascom's Facebook page shows an old man.)
(c) For four days, I tried hard but failed to find such a reported case -- not in Massachusetts, Maine -- or the entire United States. Even after I removed one, some or most of the identifiers (Maine, Newburyport, Boston, hearse, corpse), I still can not find it. My conclusion is the scenario was made up.
(d) Was anyone liable to the unfortunate rider? The driver, his co-worker, their employer, or City of Newburyport (had the city plowed snow diligently enough?)? The answer depends on when the purported accident happened, and in what jurisdiction a civil action was brought (what state, that is; each state has its own tort law, though quite similar).
(e) negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence
(section 1 Elements of negligence claims: duty, breach, causation, and damages)
This law only applied to a guest passenger, not any other guest (such as house guest).
(ii) Massachusetts abolished guest statute in 1971.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 231, section 85L provides, "In an action of tort for personal injuries, property damage or consequential damages caused by or arising from the operation of a motor vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger in the exercise of due care, the plaintiff may recover in an action against the operator upon proof that said operator was guilty of ordinary negligence resulting in said injuries or damages." https://malegislature.gov/Laws/G ... apter231/Section85L
"Gross negligence" was no longer required in Massachusetts (for a guest passenger to recover; ordinary negligence suffices), since the law had been enacted.
(iii) law of the forum: The guest passenger in the scenario might be able to sue in state court of either Maine or Massachusetts, if and only if the passenger was a Maine resident and he got on the hearse in Maine. See Saharceski v Marcure, 373 Mass 304 (1977) http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/373/373mass304.html
(Both Massachusetts residents, two employees of a Massachusetts company which had no store in Connecticut and had no employees resident or principally working there, in the course of their employment traveled in a vehicle registered in Massachusetts and owned by the company, to Connecticut to pick up merchandise and return immediately. The passenger worker was injured while in Connecticut. He could have sued in a court of either state, and invoked law of the other state while in the court of the state he had elected to file to case)
Otherwise (ie, absent both conditions), Maine state court might decline jurisdiction over forum non conveniens.
(iv)
(A) Like most sister states, state court in Massachusetts distinguished between gratuitous passenger (who rode gratis) and a paying passenger, or, put another way, a guest passenger as distinguished from a passenger for hire. See
Labree v Major, 111 RI 657, 306 A.2d 808 (1973; Rhode Island Supreme Court) http://law.justia.com/cases/rhod ... 306-a-2d-808-0.html
Quote:
"This is a civil action brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of a collision between two motor vehicles which occurred in Fall River, Massachusetts, on February 27, 1966. At the time of the accident, the plaintiffs, Francis Labree, and his pregnant wife, Sally R Labree, were passengers in a motor vehicle owned by the defendant, Yvonne Major, and operated by her daughter, the defendant, Susan L Major (now Susan L Vierra). The plaintiff Sally Labree seeks to recover for personal injuries, while Colleen Labree, her daughter born two months after the accident, seeks to recover for pain and suffering following prenatal injuries sustained at the time of the accident. Francis Labree, the husband of Sally and father of Colleen, is suing for the expenses of medical treatment and hospitalization of his wife and child. [What was unsaid was at least some parties of the case were Rhode Island residents.]
"The conflicts problem of the case at hand has proved particularly troublesome for courts and commentators. Forums which hold their drivers to a duty of reasonable care towards their passengers have had difficulty in choosing which law to apply in cases where the accident occurred in a state which only required their drivers to avoid being grossly negligent towards their guests. The variables in such cases are the residence of the host-driver, the residence of the guest-passenger, the locus of the accident, and the choice of the forum. Numerous combinations of circumstances have arisen in the reported cases. Unfortunately, no uniform pattern of decisions has emerged from these cases.
"Turning to the case at hand, Massachusetts law holds that one who injures another while conferring upon him a gratuitous benefit is not liable to him for less than gross negligence. This rule, of judicial pas opposed to legislative] origin, has been applied to cases where guests in automobiles sue their hosts. The principle, though, is not limited to the operation of motor vehicles. The basis of the rule was to protect one who renders a service gratuitously from ungrateful guests." (citation omitted)
"This action arose out of an automobile accident that occurred in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The agreed statement of facts in support of the complaint avers that on January 8, 1967 while the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in his father's automobile, the father's negligence in approaching a right-hand curve on Route 9 in Newton [a Boston suburb] caused the automobile to skid upon the slippery road and strike a telephone pole located on the left side of the road, causing the plaintiff's injuries for which he now seeks compensation. The parties agree they both are presently residents of the State of Maine and were so at the time of the accident.
"The Massachusetts doctrine of gross negligence is not recognized as a part of the law of this State.
(v) What distinguish gross negligence from ordinary negligence.