Brown v. Henderson
Decision Date | 15 February 1934 |
Citation | 285 Mass. 192,189 N.E. 41 |
Parties | BROWN v. HENDERSON (two cases). |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; E. B. Bishop, Judge.
Actions of tort by George H. Brown against Alexander Henderson and against Carrie N. Henderson. Verdict for plaintiff in each case, and defendants bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
J. S. McCann, of Boston, for plaintiff.
A. S. Allen, of Boston, for defendants.
These are actions of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, while a pedestrian crossing a street in Boston, through being struck because of the negligence of the female defendant (hereafter called the defendant) in operating an automobile owned by the other defendant. The plaintiff, the defendant and one other witness testified in considerable detail as to the circumstances of the accident. In some respects there was irreconcilable conflict between the testimony of the defendant and that of the other two eyewitnesses. There was evidence sufficient to support a finding of negligence of the operator of the automobile and of contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The cases were submitted to the jury and resulted in verdicts for the plaintiff. At the close of the evidence the defendants requested these instructions: These requests were not granted. The instructions, so far as material to these exceptions, were in these words: Counsel for the defendant then excepted to the portion of the charge to the effect that the jurors ‘were to bear the presumption in mind all the time, also that the presumption does not disappear until overcome by evidence.’ Thereupon the trial judge said: The defendants saved exceptions to ‘that last’ and to the refusal to give their requests.
It is provided by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 85, that ‘In all actions, civil or criminal, to recover damages for injuries to the person or property or for causing the death of a person, the person injured or killed shall be presumed to have been in the exercise of due care, and contributory negligence on his part shall be an affirmative defence to be set up in the answer and proved by the defendant.’ This section, which originated in St. 1914, c. 553, made an important change in our law. This section joins two distinct propositions or rules of practice to be observed in the trial of the specified classes of actions. The first part creates a presumption of due care on the part of the person injured or killed. The second part makes the contributory negligence of such person an affirmative defence to be pleaded and proved. Both these propositions were new in the law of this Commonwealth. It was said respectingthis statute in Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370, 378, 119 N. E. 757, 760, L. R. A. 1918E, 680: * * * ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krantz v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...that the insured did not commit suicide. Model Code of Evidence, Rule 701; Rule 704(2) and associated discussion. Brown v. Henderson, 285 Mass. 192, 195-196, 189 N.E. 41. Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370, 378, 119 N.E. 757, L.R.A.1918E, 680. Perry v. Boston Elevated Railway......
-
Com. v. McInerney
...Mass. ---, ---- - ---- n, 331 N.E.2d 901, appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 887, 96 S.Ct. 181, 46 bL.Ed.2d 119 (1975); Brown v. Henderson, 285 Mass. 192, 194-197, 189 N.E.41 (1934). We need not dwell further on the problems inherent in presumptions because we believe that the process by which a ju......
-
Weiss v. Axler
...that presumptions can be weighed as evidence. Gillett v. Michigan United Traction Co., 205 Mich. 410, 171 N.W. 536; Brown v. Henderson, 285 Mass. 192, 189 N.E. 41; McBaine, 'Presumptions: Are They Evidence?', 26 Cal.L.Rev. 519, 546; Morgan, 'Some Observations Concerning Presumptions,' 44 Ha......
-
Rice v. The Office of Servicemembers Group Life Ins.
...537, 542 (10th Cir. 1968); Dostal v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 189 F.2d 352, 355-56 (3d Cir. 1951); cf. Brown v. Henderson, 189 N.E. 41, 43 (Mass. 1934) (Lummus, J., concurring in the result) ("The statutory presumption . . . is wholly overshadowed by that burden of proof, and can have no prac......