Healy v. O'Riley
| Decision Date | 17 November 1926 |
| Citation | Healy v. O'Riley, 257 Mass. 413 (Mass. 1926) |
| Parties | MARTIN F. HEALY v. JOSEPH O'RILEY. |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
November 15, 1926.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, CROSBY PIERCE, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Practice, Civil Requests, rulings, and instructions, Common Law Rule 44 of the Superior Court (1923). Rules of Court.
No question of law is presented to this court by an exception saved by a defendant to a refusal by the judge presiding at a trial in the Superior
Court to grant a request for a ruling in effect that upon all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, where it does not appear that the defendant presented a motion in writing, in accordance with Common Law Rule 44 of the Superior Court (1923), that a verdict be ordered in his favor.
TORT for personal injuries received by the plaintiff when riding in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. Writ dated February 1, 1924.
In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Irwin, J. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,700. The defendant alleged exceptions.
The case was submitted on briefs. E.L. Shaw, T.R. Hickey, & R.H. Cook for the defendant.
A.B. Green & C.S. Lyon, for the plaintiff.
BY THE COURT. The only point argued by the defendant is that the first of his several requests for rulings, to the effect that upon all the evidence the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, ought to have been granted. That was in substance a request for a directed verdict. Under Common Law Rule 44 of the Superior Court (1923) the question whether the court should order a verdict must be raised by motion and not by a request for instructions. That is a valid rule and must be followed. The question argued by the defendant is not open on this record. Carp v. Kaplan, 251 Mass. 225 .
If, however, the merits be considered, there was ample evidence of gross negligence on the part of the defendant causative in injuring the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Cook v. Cole
...a finding of gross negligence. Marcienowski v. Sanders, 252 Mass. 65, 147 N. E. 275. See also Burke v. Cook, supra; Healy v. O'Riley, 257 Mass. 413, 153 N. E. 881; and Terlizzi v. Marsh, 258 Mass. 156, 154 N. E. 754, are distinguishable. Nor was such a finding warranted by the testimony to ......
-
Dzura v. Phillips
...was sufficient. Flynn v. Lewis, 231 Mass. 550, 121 N. E. 493, 2 A. L. R. 896. The cases fall within the decisions in Healy v. O'Riley, 257 Mass. 413, 153 N. E. 881;Manning v. Simpson, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N. E. 440;Rog v. Eltis (Mass.) 169 N. E. 413:Blood v. Adams (Mass.) 169 N. E. 412;Mccarr......
-
Connors v. Boland
...was abundant evidence of gross negligence in the present case. The facts here found are strikingly like those shown in Healy v. O'Riley, 257 Mass. 413, 153 N. E. 881, where it was held that there was evidence of gross negligence. In Leonard v. Conquest, 274 Mass. 347, at page 352, 174 N. E.......
-
Cook v. Cole
... ... negligence, did not warrant a finding of gross negligence ... Marcienowski v. Sanders, 252 Mass. 65 ... See also ... Burke v. Cook, supra. Healy v. O'Riley, 257 ... Mass. 413 , and Terlizzi v. Marsh, 258 Mass. 156 , ... are distinguishable. Nor was such a finding warranted by the ... ...