Horton v. Tilton
| Decision Date | 01 December 1949 |
| Parties | HORTON et al. v. TILTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Jane V. Horton and her husband against Louise Tilton for injuries suffered by plaintiff while in defendant's employ.
The First District Court, J. E. Welch, J., rendered judgment for plaintiffs and the Appellate Division dismissed the report of the case and the defendant appealed.
The Supreme Judicial Court, Ronan, J., affirmed that order dismissing the report holding that where judge made special findings that defendant was negligent and plaintiff was not, his denial of defendant's request for rulings on negligence was harmless.T. T. Tweedy, Taunton, for plaintiffs.
F. D. Mone, No. Easton, for defendant.
Before QUA, C.J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING, and COUNIHAN, JJ.
The female plaintiff (hereinafter called the plaintiff) and her husband recovered damages for an injury which the plaintiff received while in the employ of the defendant, an antique dealer, when her finger was so badly crushed in the latch of a garage door that she lost a considerable portion of the bone of the first phalanx. The judge denied two requests for rulings, one to the effect that there was a sufficiency of evidence to find that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and the other that there was a sufficiency of evidence to find that the defendant was not negligent. These requests were denied by the judge because, as he stated, he found upon the evidence that the plaintiff was not negligent but that the defendant was negligent. A report to the Appellate Division was dismissed, and the defendant appealed.
It is plain from the special findings made by the judge in denying these requests that he found upon the evidence that the plaintiffs had proved that the defendant was negligent, and that the defendant had failed to prove the negligence of the female plaintiff. The denial of the requests, therefore, became immaterial. Further discussion would be superfluous in view of recent decisions in which the subject has been exhaustively treated with a full citation of cases. Perry v. Hanover, 314 Mass. 167, 50 N.E.2d 41;Brodeur v. Seymour, 315 Mass. 527, 53 N.E.2d 566;Liberatore v. Framingham, 315 Mass. 538, 53 N.E.2d 561;Quinby v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 318 Mass. 438, 61 N.E.2d 853, 160 A.L.R. 724;Connell v. Maynard, 322 Mass. 245, 76 N.E.2d 642.
Order dismissing report affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerr v. Palmieri
... ... finding in favor of the plaintiff on the facts.' There ... was no error in this respect. Horton v. Tilton, 325 ... Mass. 79, 88 N.E.2d 905 ... Although there was ... not much direct evidence as to the conduct of the defendant ... ...
-
Kerr v. Palmieri
... ... Horton v. Tilton, 325 Mass. 79, 88 N.E.2d 905 ... Although there was not much direct evidence as to the conduct of the defendant in driving ... ...
-
DiGesse v. Columbia Pontiac Co., Inc.
...was guilty of contributory negligence. Russell v. First Nat'l Stores, Inc., 335 Mass. 768, 140 N.E.2d 466 (1957). Horton v. Tilton, 325 Mass. 79, 88 N.E.2d 905 (1949). Connell v. Maynard, 322 Mass. 245, 246, 76 N.E.2d 642 (1948). Himelfarb v. Navadel Agene Corp., 305 Mass. 446, 447--449, 26......
-
Marshall Vessels, Inc. v. Wright
...could not recover or in denying the plaintiff's request that there was evidence to warrant a finding in its favor. Horton v. Tilton, 325 Mass. 79, 88 N.E.2d 905; Kerr v. Palmieri, 325 Mass. 554, 556, 91 N.E.2d 754; Fibre Leather Mfg. Corp. v. Ramsay Mills, Inc., 329 Mass. 575, 577-578, 109 ......