241 Mass. 462 | Mass. | 1922
On the morning of August 20, 1919, the plaintiff, her daughter Grace H. Gifford, and a neighbor were returning from Plymouth in an automobile. They were proceeding northerly along Morton Street, in Boston, on their right hand side of the road. A Ford touring car, owned and operated by the defendant, was being towed by a Ford truck in the opposite direction; it suddenly darted out from behind the truck, “shot across” Morton Street, struck the left side of the Harlow car, and tipped it over. The due care of the plaintiff is not questioned. The negligence of the defendant plainly was for the jury, as the evidence tended to show that the brakes and steering gear of his machine were in good condition. It is apparent that the verdict for the defendant was directed on the issue of lawful registration.
The automobile was registered in the name of the plaintiff, and the “usual registration papers” were in the car at the time of the accident. Both she and her daughter Mrs. Gifford were duly licensed operators, and each frequently drove the car. At the time of the accident Mrs. Gifford was at the wheel, and the plaintiff sat beside her on the front seat. There was some evidence that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the car, and that her daughter was driving it for her. That was sufficient to entitle her to go to the jury. Commonwealth v. Sherman, 191 Mass. 439. Bourne v. Whitman, 209 Mass. 155, 172. Smith v. Jordan, 211 Mass. 269. Bullard v. Boston Elevated Railway, 226 Mass. 262.
Even if Mrs. Gifford was a part owner of the automobile, as the evidence indicates, that fact would not render the registration invalid as matter of law. The statute, G. L. c. 90, § 2, provides that application for the registration of motor vehicles may be made by the “owner thereof.” As was said in Keith v. Maguire, 170 Mass. 210, 212: “The word ‘owner’ is not a technical term. It is not confined to the person who has the absolute right in a chattel, but also applies to the person who has the possession and control of it.” In Downey v. Bay State Street Railway,
The case of Shufelt v. McCartin, 235 Mass. 122, does not control the present one. In that case the automobile was operated by a non-registered part owner, on his own account, and in the absence of the part owner in whose name the car was registered. In Rolli v. Converse, 227 Mass. 162, referred to in the Shufelt case, .there had been a transfer of ownership of the vehicle.subsequent to the original valid registration; and by the express terms of the statute “upon the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle its registration shall expire,” the registration bad come to an end. While, as suggested in these cases, a purpose of the Legislature in requiring registration in the name of the owner, was to provide identification for the benefit of travellers in
The plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on the evidence, and the entry must be
Exceptions sustained.