298 Mass. 7 | Mass. | 1937
The plaintiff was injured on January 6, 1934, as the result of a collision on Revere Street in Canton between a “fire truck” on which the plaintiff was riding and an “oil truck” owned by the defendant and operated by its servant. After a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff presses exceptions to the refusal of the judge to give certain rulings requested by him and to a portion of the charge.
The exceptions relate solely to the construction to be given to the first sentence of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 85, § 31.
It is difficult to give a construction to the sentence quoted from § 31 in its present form which will at the same time give full force to that part of the sentence which precedes the semicolon and to that part which follows it, accord to the word “vehicle” its ordinary inclusive meaning, and admit of practical application to known conditions in a reasonable manner. The difficulty arose through the passage of St. 1918, e. 116, § 2, wherein important changes were made in certain vital words of the preexisting law. See St. 1913, c. 803, § 2. If the second part of the sentence is held to limit to twelve miles an hour the speed of a motor truck having rubber tires, the result will be that the first part, which alone expressly mentions motor trucks and which purports to establish a general rule governing them, will be confined, in its application to trucks, to such as have tires of some material which is neither metal nor “rubber or other similar substance.” This would seem practically equivalent to rendering that provision nugatory. If there are, or if there were in 1918, any motor trucks which would fit this description, it seems impos
It is possible, however, to construe the sentence in its present form as intended to deal specifically with traction engines and motor trucks in that part which precedes the semicolon and to deal separately with all other vehicles in that part which follows the semicolon. We are well aware of the difficulties inherent in this construction, and that it interprets the word “vehicle” in a sense narrower than that in which it is commonly used and very likely narrower than that in which it is used later on in the same section, but on the whole we think these objections less serious than those encountered by the construction first above suggested. Scope will be left for the operation of both parts of the sentence. Moreover, this is a penal statute (see § 32), and as such it should be construed with some strictness. We do not think that it limits the speed of motor trucks of the specified weight equipped with rubber tires to twelve miles an hour, although it is clear that such trucks cannot lawfully be operated at a speed greater than fifteen miles an hour.
Exceptions overruled.