Comments on: Livery car liable for passenger’s later crash

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:07:51 +0000

Was the passenger obviously drunk? Or was he drunk and carrying on just fine? Should the cab driver administer a breathalyzer?

I do struggle with the duty owed here, even considering the heightened care required by common carriers.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:03:42 +0000

Isn’t kidnapping against the law in Massachusetts?

If the livery driver knew that the drunken passenger was about to drive (which isn’t clear from the report) the most responsible thing to do would probably be to call the police and try to stall the passenger until they arrived.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:01:28 +0000

Let me get this straight. I get drunk, take a cab home and could be liable for my stupidly driving afterward because they dropped me near someplace I might have a car?

Would they also be liable if they dropped me someplace near a tall building I might jump off of?

By: westlawuser

westlawuser — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:41:14 +0000

Commerce Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Livery Service, Inc.
2008 WL 4981557
November 26, 2008

As a law student studying for my Torts exam in two weeks, this is an interesting case. If the defendants are held liable, I hope there’s some kind of partial indemnity that only makes them liable for the .0001% of their actual fault for the wrongful death. Which reminds me that I need to study damages…

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:43:44 +0000

This ruling–naturally–is just plain dumb. But I think the Boston.com headline may be misleading. And, I can’t find the link on the MA SJC for the court ruling to check my suspicions.

It appears the SJC reversed a summary judgment (i.e: threw the case “back into” court). It appears the SJC maintained there indeed was a duty owed by the livery company when the trial court held otherwise.

So, I suspect the headline is mostly misleading–the SJC did not (I suspect) rule the livery firm “negligent” but rather allowed the case to proceed on its merits in superior court.

On the other hand the story indicates, “The case could now go to trial in a lower court to determine whether damages should be paid.”

This would seem to indicate the issue of liability is decided and the jury will consider only damages. If so, this decision is dumb, dumb dumb!

So, it’s either sloppy reporting or a terrible SJC ruling.

By: Jerry S

Jerry S — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:15:15 +0000

Wow! Consider me speechless and where was he supposed to drop him off? At the mall? Te Police Station? The Zoo?

By: Stella Baskomb

Stella Baskomb — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:12:59 +0000

By the same reasoning is not the State of Massachusetts liable for damages for every crime committed in the State?

After all, does it not permit its citizens to remain on the streets and free to commit crimes, rather than locking them up?

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:34:40 +0000

The court said [the hired driver] should not have dropped off a drunk passenger at a location where he would probably get into a car and drive.

Isn’t kidnapping against the law in Massachusetts?