De Jesus v. Hamel
| Decision Date | 04 June 1965 |
| Parties | Jean C. DE JESUS et al. v. Rene J. HAMEL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Charles F. Nayor, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Francis H. George, Worcester, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WHITTEMORE, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This is an action of contract and tort to recover damages for inter alia, breach of the contractual obligation of the defendant, a dentist, in extracting certain of the female plaintiff's teeth contrary to her instructions, and for negligently so extracting them. The jury found for the defendant. The case is here on the plaintiffs' exception to the judge's refusal to exclude the following question to the defendant. 'In your professional judgment at the time you talked to * * * [the female plaintiff] while she was on the operating table, do you have an opinion as to whether * * * she understood * * * the conversation you had with her?' The plaintiffs argue that the defendant, as a dentist, was not qualified to give an expert opinion regarding the female plaintiff's comprehension while she was under sedation. 'Generally it is within the discretion of the trial judge to determine whether to admit the testimony of an expert.' Consolini v. Commonwealth, 346 Mass. 501, 503, 194 N.E.2d 407, 409. COMMONWEALTH V. MONAHAN, MASS., 207 N.E.2D 29.A In view of the evidence of the defendant's education, training, experience and familiarity with sedatives we cannot say the judge abused his discretion in allowing the question. See McCormick, Evidence, § 13. Compare Langis v. Danforth, 308 Mass. 508, 510-511, 33 N.E.2d 287.
Exceptions overruled.
a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1965) 713, 736.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Haas
...of the judge as a preliminary issue of fact. Commonwealth v. Seit, --- Mass. ---, --- k, 364 N.E.2d 1243 (1977). DeJesus v. Hamel, 349 Mass. 764, 208 N.E.2d 246 (1965). W. B. Leach & P. J. Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 99-100 (4th ed.1967). Such decisions are rarely reversed on appellate r......
-
Power Service Supply, Inc. v. E. W. Wiggins Airways, Inc.
...particulars of the accident's occurrence. Venini v. Dias, 5 Mass.App. 695, --- - ---, e 369 N.E.2d 1026 (1977). See also DeJesus v. Hamel, 349 Mass. 764 (1965); SAMII V. BAYSTATE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., --- MASS.APP. ---, 395 N.E.2D 455 (1979)F. A witness can be found qualified to express an ......
-
Giannasca v. Everett Aluminum, Inc.
...in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Consolini v. Commonwealth, 346 Mass. 501, 503, 194 N.E.2d 407 (1963). DeJesus v. Hamel, 349 Mass. 764, 208 N.E.2d 246 (1965). See generally Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 103-117 (5th ed. 1981). It is well established that one principle govern......
-
Gill v. Northshore Radiological Associates, Inc.
...(his) discretion'." Samii v. Baystate Medical Center, Inc., --- Mass.App. --- c, 395 N.E.2d 455 (1979), quoting from DeJesus v. Hamel, 349 Mass. 764, 208 N.E.2d 246 (1965). Compare Langis v. Danforth, 308 Mass. 508, 510-511, 33 N.E.2d 287 3. It was not error for the judge to refuse to give ......