D resides in a single-family cottage. Next door to her house is a two-story, two-family dwelling, in which resides the owner of the other car involved in this incident. Between the two houses is a paved driveway that widens and ends in a parking area. Only the occupants of the two houses park in this area. There are no businesses or public services of any kind located along or around the driveway parking area. The driveway is the width of two cars; the parking area at the end is several times wider. Nothing about the driveway gave it the appearance of a public way, it served no business purpose and was open only to residents and social visitors. D crashed her car into another vehicle that was parked along this private driveway. The issue at trial was the location at which D was found to have been operating her motor vehicle on the evening in question. The judge denied D's motion for a required finding of not guilty on the ground that the place on which she was operating the vehicle was not within the reach of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), because it is not a way or place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees. D was convicted and appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.