Godfrey V. Globe Newspaper Co. (457)

.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119, 928 N.E.2d 327 (2010). Accordingly, the following is a description of the facts as viewed in favor of the defendant, Alexander Smith.
The single car accident occurred at approximately 3:00 p.m. on October 15, 2015, when the driver, Alexander Smith, was driving northbound in Campbell Road in North Andover. The plaintiff, Brian Jones, a juvenile born in March 3, 2000, was a passenger in the backseat of the car owned by Oscar Smith, Alexander’s father, when the car operate by Alexander slid off the pavement and into a tree. According to Smith, the road was covered with
Summary Judgment Standard of Review As stated previously, summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows, based on the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, “that there are no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”. Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (a). The defendants, as the moving parties, “have the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre, Ltd., 464 Mass. 795, 799, 985 N.E.2d 1187 (2013). The moving party may satisfy its burden by demonstrating that the opposing party has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of the case at trial. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716, 575 N.E.2d 734 (1991). “Once the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts establishing the existence of a material fact in order to defeat the motion.” SCA Servs., Inc. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 419 Mass. 528, 531, 646 N.E.2d 394 (1995). If the burden is met, the opposing party can avoid summary judgment only by providing properly supported evidence of disputed material facts that would required trial. The court must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and indulge all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See Godfrey, 928 N.E.2d 327.
Actionable negligence only exists in the context of a legal duty of care owed from one party to another. See Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 591, 121 N.E. 505 (1919) (“Negligence, without qualification and in its ordinary sense, is the failure of a responsible person, either by omission or by action, to exercise that degree of care, vigilance and forethought which, in the discharge of the duty then resting on him, the person of ordinary caution and prudence ought to exercise under the particular circumstances”). Also see Carroll v. Bouley, 338 Mass. 625, 627, 156 N.E.2d 687, 689 (1959). Moreover, a driver owes others the duty to operate a motor vehicle “in a reasonably careful and prudent manner” and, “within the bounds of ordinary care,” “to anticipate and provide against what usually happens and what is likely to happen[.]” Buda v. Foley, 302 Mass. 411, 413, 19 N.E.2d 537, 538