Commonwealth v. Sostilio
1949 Mass. LEXIS 637, 89 N.E.2d 510, 325 Mass. 143 (1949)
Rule of Law:
A participant in a sporting event may be held criminally liable for manslaughter if their conduct is wanton or reckless, creating a high likelihood of substantial harm, particularly in sports where physical contact is not an essential element of the game.
Facts:
- The defendant participated in a 'midget' automobile race at a licensed track, starting in the rear row due to his experience and the speed of his vehicle.
- The victim, Stephen D. Bishop, and another driver named Niemi were positioned ahead of the defendant in the race.
- During the race, Niemi was driving with his left wheels approximately two feet from the inside edge of the track.
- The defendant, traveling at over forty miles per hour, attempted to pass Niemi on the left (inside) despite there being insufficient space to do so safely.
- The defendant forced his vehicle into the narrow gap, either striking Niemi’s car or forcing Niemi to swerve abruptly to the right.
- This action caused Niemi’s car to collide with Bishop’s vehicle.
- As a result of the collision, Bishop’s car overturned three times.
- Bishop sustained severe head injuries from the crash and died a few hours later.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted on three counts, including manslaughter and wanton and reckless operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
- The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts.
- The defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction.
- The trial judge denied the motion for a directed verdict.
- The defendant appealed the denial of the motion to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence of wanton or reckless conduct to support a manslaughter conviction where a race car driver attempts to overtake another vehicle at high speed in a space too narrow to pass, resulting in a fatal collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Lummus, J.
Yes. The court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the defendant's deliberate attempt to pass in an impossible space constituted wanton and reckless conduct sufficient for manslaughter. The court distinguished this case from contact sports like football, noting that physical contact is not an essential part of automobile racing. The defendant's insistence on driving past another car when there was no room made a collision 'almost inevitable,' satisfying the definition of wanton or reckless conduct—intentional conduct involving a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of the 'sports exception' to criminal liability. While the common law accepts that participants in contact sports (like football or boxing) consent to certain physical risks, this immunity does not extend to reckless conduct in non-contact sports or conduct that flagrantly disregards safety rules. The court establishes that 'wanton or reckless' conduct—which serves as the legal equivalent of intentional intent for manslaughter—can be found even within the context of a competitive event if the act goes beyond the inherent nature of the sport. It affirms that the race track does not provide a sanctuary from criminal negligence laws.
