Palter v. Zarnisky
| Decision Date | 06 January 1959 |
| Parties | Frances PALTER v. Tillie ZARNISKY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Peter D. Cole, Boston (George E. Donovan, Boston, with him), for defendants.
Alfred A. Albert, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.
This is an action of tort against Tillie Zarinsky, hereinafter called the defendant, and her son, Melvin Zarinsky, for injuries sustained in a dwelling house at 10 Hillside Avenue, Revere, occupied and controlled by the defendants. The declaration originally was in two counts, one for negligence on account of which the plaintiff as a business visitor was injured, and the other for gross negligence causing the injury to the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff in the course of his argument waived the first count. The action was submitted to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It comes here upon the exceptions of the defendants to the denial of their motion for a directed verdict and to the judge's charge.
The evidence most favorable to the plaintiff was as follows: On October 28, 1952, the defendant invited several women to her home to play cards and for a general social evening. Prior to the arrival of the guests, the defendant put up a clothes hanger on a door in the back hallway and closed the door. This door opened onto a platform from which stairs led to the cellar. The defendant directed the plaintiff to hang her outer clothes on this hanger. As she was doing so the door swung open and away from the plaintiff. It was dark inside the doorway. The plaintiff thought it led to a bedroom. As she stepped from the platform to enter what she thought was a bedroom she fell down the stairs leading to the cellar and suffered injury.
In these circumstances the sole issue before us is whether the evidence warranted a finding that the defendants were guilty of gross negligence which is required to hold them liable. We are of opinion that it did not and that the failure to direct a verdict for the defendants was error. Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578, 189 N.E. 588, 92 A.L.R. 1002; Aragona v. Parrella, 325 Mass. 583, 91 N.E.2d 778; O'Brien v. Shea, 326 Mass. 681, 96 N.E.2d 163. Because of this we need not consider the defendants' exceptions to the judge's charge.
Exceptions sustained.
Judgment for the defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pandiscio v. Bowen
...that the evidence would warrant a finding of gross negligence on the part of either the mother or the stepfather. See Palter v. Zarinsky, 338 Mass. 256, 257, 155 N.E.2d 158. 2. The basic issue is whether the daughter was conferring such a benefit upon the mother as to entitle the daughter t......
-
Buchholz v. Steitz, 17531
...Baer v. Van Huffell, 225 Or. 30, 356 P.2d 1069 (1960); Tempest v. Richardson, 5 Utah 2d 174, 299 P.2d 124 (1956); Palter v. Zarnisky, 338 Mass. 256, 155 N.E.2d 158 (1959); Biggs v. Bear, 320 Ill.App. 597, 51 N.E.2d 799 (1943). Plaintiff cites decisions reaching contrary results, but all inv......
-
Holiday v. First Parish Church of Groton
...588, 92 A.L.R. 1002; Aragona v. Parrella, 325 Mass. 583, 91 N.E.2d 778; O'Brien v. Shea, 326 Mass. 681, 96 N.E.2d 163; Palter v. Zarnisky, 338 Mass. 256, 155 N.E.2d 158. A finding that the public was invited to the building for the defendant's purpose with the result that visitors became in......
-
Meredith v. McLaughlin
...and the judge rightly directed a verdict for the defendants. See Aragona v. Parrella, 325 Mass. 583, 91 N.E.2d 778; Palter v. Zarinsky, 338 Mass. 256, 155 N.E.2d 158; Holiday v. First Parish Church of Groton, 339 Mass. 692, 162 N.E.2d Exceptions overruled. ...