Levy v. Steiger
Decision Date | 10 October 1919 |
Citation | 233 Mass. 600,124 N.E. 477 |
Parties | LEVY v. STEIGER (two cases). |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Franklin T. Hammond, Judge.
Actions by Augusta Levy and by Mary Levy against Ralph A. Steiger. Verdicts for plaintiffs, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
George S. Taft, of Worcester, for plaintiffs.
Charles C. Milton and Frank L. Riley, both of Worcester, for defendant
The plaintiffs were injured in a collision between an automobile, in which they were riding as guests, and a car driven by the defendant. Although the parties are residents of this commonwealth, the accident occurred in the town of East Providence in the state of Rhode Island. The judge of the superior court ruled that the Massachusetts statute (St. 1914, c. 553) was applicable to the cases on trial, and accordingly instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of showing contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. The defendant's exception to this ruling and instruction raises the single question before us.
[1][2] It is elementary that the law of the place where the injury was received determines whether a right of action exists, and that the law of the place where the action is brought regulates the remedy and its incidents, such as pleading, evidence and practice. Davis v. New York & New England Railroad, 143 Mass. 301, 9 N. E. 815,58 Am. Rep. 138;Hoadley v. Northern Transportation Co., 115 Mass. 304, 15 Am. Rep. 106. While there may be cases where it is difficult to decide whether a particular enactment relates to procedure or to substantive rights, it was settled in Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370, 119 N. E. 757, L. R. A. 1918E, 680, where its construction and constitutionality were in question, that this ‘due care’ statute, so called, is one of procedure. As the court expressly said, in construing the statute, with a view to determining its constitutionality (230 Mass. 377, 119 N. E. 759, L. R. A. 1918E, 680,):
And again (230 Mass. 380, 119 N. E. 761, L. R. A. 1918E, 680):
See also Miller v. Flash Chemical Co., 230 Mass. 419, 422, 119 N. E. 702;Chicago, etc., Railroad...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sampson v. Channell
......Levy v. Steiger, 233 Mass. 600, 124 N.E. 477; Smith v. Brown, Mass., 19 N.E.2d 732; Chicago Terminal R. R. v. Vandenberg, 164 Ind. 470, 73 N.E. 990; ......
-
American Dredgin Co., v. Miller
...... In earlier times, burden of proof was regarded as "procedural" for choice-of-law purposes such as the one before us here, see, e.g., Levy v. Steiger, 233 Mass. 600, 124 N.E. 477 (1919); Restatement of Conflict of Laws § 595 (1934). For many years, however, it has been viewed as a ......
-
Hopkins v. Kurn
...165 S.W. 1043; Woodard v. Bush, 282 Mo. 163, 220 S.W. 839; Cook v. Hines, 235 S.W. 156; Morris v. Railroad Co., 251 S.W. 763; Levy v. Steiger, 124 N.E. 477; 39 C.J. 824; St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 181 S.W. l.c. 573; Railroad Co. v. Whitlow's Admr., 43 S.W. 711, 41 L.R.A. 614; Wester......
-
Hopkins v. Kurn
......596, 165 S.W. 1043; Woodard v. Bush, 282 Mo. 163, 220 S.W. 839; Cook v. Hines, . 235 S.W. 156; Morris v. Railroad Co., 251 S.W. 763;. Levy v. Steiger, 124 N.E. 477; 39 C. J. 824; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 181 S.W. l. c. 573;. Railroad Co. v. Whitlow's Admr., 43 S.W. 711, ......