McGlinchy v. Henderson
Decision Date | 02 March 1922 |
Citation | 240 Mass. 432,134 N.E. 264 |
Parties | McGLINCHY v. HENDERSON. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.
Action of tort for personal injuries caused by collision with an automobile by Mary E. McGlinchy against James H. Henderson. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,500, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Plaintiff was struck by defendant's automobile while crossing diagonally from a park in the center of the street to the side of the street. Defendant excepted to the admission of evidence of the value of the stock in plaintiff's place of business, to the exclusion of evidence as to how long defendant had driven an automobile, and to the admission of evidence as to the number of offices which defendant's employers had. The action was tried with one against the employers in which a verdict was directed for the defendants.
Halligan & Murray, B. J. Killion, and Charles Toye, all of Boston, for plaintiff.
Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff was struck by an automobile owned by Henderson & Ross and operated by the defendant, James H. Henderson, who was their employee. In an action brought by this plaintiff against Henderson & Ross, the court ordered a verdict for the defendants on the ground that there was no evidence that the defendant Henderson was at the time of the accident operating the automobile in the course of his employment. Both cases were tried together. In the present action the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff testified that she was the owner of a delicatessen store; that she was about her place of business from 6 o'clock in the morning until midnight. Against the defendant's exception she was permitted to state that the value of the stock in her store was $450; the trial judge admitting this evidence ‘for the purpose of showing the nature and kind of work she was doing before.’ The extent of the plaintiff's inability to perform her usual work was an element to be considered in determining the amount of her compensation; and as bearing on that question she could show the value of the stock in trade of her business. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferris v. Turner
...110 Mass. 49;O'Hare v. Gloag, 221 Mass. 24, 29, 30, 108 N.E. 566;Luiz v. Falvey, 228 Mass. 253, 255, 117 N.E. 308;McGlinchy v. Henderson, 240 Mass. 432, 134 N.E. 264; Kenyon v. Hathaway, 274 Mass. 47, 51, 52, 174 N.E. 463, 73 A.L.R. 156;Conrad v. Mazman, 287 Mass. 229, 235, 236, 191 N.E. 76......
-
Doherty v. Ruiz
...132 , 133; Gray v. Boston Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 143, 146; Mahoney v. Boston Elevated Railway, 221 Mass. 116 , 118; McGlinchy v. Henderson, 240 Mass. 432 , 433; Mangano v. Marston, 298 Mass. 133); and evidence opportunity for employment and earning lost because of disability. Halloran ......
-
Ferris v. Turner
... ... [1] McDonald v. Savoy, 110 Mass. 49 ... O'Hare v. Gloag, 221 Mass. 24 , 29, 30. Luiz ... v. Falvey, 228 Mass. 253 , 255. McGlinchy v ... Henderson, 240 Mass. 432 ... Kenyon v. Hathaway, ... 274 Mass. 47 , 51, ... [320 Mass. 558] ... 52. Conrad v ... ...
-
Belisle v. Lisk, 2062.
...49. Compare O'Hare v. Gloag, 221 Mass. 24 at page 29, 108 N. E. 566; Luiz v. Falvey, 228 Mass. 253, 117 N. E. 308; McGlinchy v. Henderson, 240 Mass. 432, 134 N. E. 264. But careful examination of the Massachusetts cases leaves us unconvinced that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ......