Murnane v. MacDonald
| Decision Date | 26 May 1936 |
| Citation | 294 Mass. 372,2 N.E.2d 194 |
| Parties | MURNANE v. MacDONALD. HARNEY v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Greenhalge, Judge.
Two actions of tort in the superior court by Jeremiah Murnane and by Eleanor Harney against William M. J. MacDonald. Verdicts for defendant, and to review orders denying their motions for new trials, the plaintiffs bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
F. M Carroll, of Boston, for plaintiffs.
T. H Mahony, of Boston, for defendants.
These two actions of tort, which were tried together, arose out of a collision between an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff Murnane and an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. The action by the plaintiff Murnane was brought to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by him and for damage to his automobile. The other action was brought by the plaintiff Harney to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by her while a passenger in the automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff Murnane. In each case there was a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1. Each plaintiff duly filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages on the grounds that the verdict was against the evidence and that the damages awarded were grossly inadequate. And each plaintiff also duly filed a motion that the entire verdict be set aside and a new trial granted on the grounds that the verdict was against the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the law, that the damages awarded were grossly inadequate, and that the verdict was a compromise verdict. The motions were denied and the plaintiffs excepted.
No exception lies to the denial of any such motion unless it is shown that there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law on a question arising for the first time on such motion. Carrato v. Miller, 264 Mass. 533, 163 N.E. 251, and cases cited. See, also, Moskow v. Burke, 266 Mass 286, 290, 165 N.E. 416.
There was no such error of law. The verdict for the plaintiff in each case for damages in the amount of $1 was not as matter of law inconsistent with the finding for the plaintiff which such verdict imports. The nature of the accident did not as matter of law require a finding that the damages caused thereby were greater than the damages found. There was no evidence of the extent of the personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs or of the damage of the plaintiff Murnane's automobile which the jury were required to believe, even if it was uncontradicted. And as to the extent of such personal injuries there was some conflict in the evidence. The finding of liability did not establish the complete trustworthiness of the witnesses or the accuracy of their testimony with respect to the personal injuries and property damage caused by the accident. The jury could have believed the testimony to the way in which the accident occurred without accepting as true the testimony, even of the same witnesses, to the extent of the plaintiffs' injuries and the property damage, and could have concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish by credible evidence that the damages caused by the accident to each plaintiff exceeded $1 in amount. See Carrato v. Miller, 264 Mass. 533, 535, 163 N.E. 251. Furthermore, the record does not show any misconduct on the part of the jurors in reaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial