Purdy v. R. A. McWhirr Co.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1966 |
| Citation | 350 Mass. 769,215 N.E.2d 92 |
| Parties | Evelyn Hathaway PURDY v. R. A. McWHIRR CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John H. Fletcher Calver, Boston, for defendant.
William A. Torphy, Harold K. Hudner and Frederic J. Torphy, Fall River, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
In this action of tort, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case is here on the defendant's exception to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. We summarize the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. Several packing boxes, each three feet high, twenty-seven inches wide, three inches thick and weighing twenty-one pounds, stood 'straight up and against the end' of a two foot high display table in the defendant's store, 'flush to the table.' Each box contained a metal table. The boxes extended some five to six inches into the aisle. As the plaintiff walked by the table, 'there was a bang and a thud and the boxes were on her leg.' She tried to get them off but was unsuccessful until two women came and assisted her. The defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or that the defendant's negligence caused the accident. The plaintiff was not required to point out the exact way in which the accident occurred as long as she showed a greater likelihood that her injuries came from an act of negligence for which the defendant was responsible. Navien v. Cohen, 268 Mass. 427, 431, 167 N.E. 666; Conley v. Morash, 307 Mass. 430, 432, 433, 30 N.E.2d 224. The jury could have found that leaving the cartons in a state of precarious balance was a negligent act which caused the injury. See Navien v. Cohen, 268 Mass. 427, 167 N.E. 666; Dunbar v. Ferrera Bros., Inc., 306 Mass. 90, 27 N.E.2d 675; Ryder v. Robinson, 329 Mass. 285, 107 N.E.2d 803.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zezuski v. Jenny Mfg. Co.
...that . . . (his) injuries came from an act of negligence for which the . . . (defendants were) responsible.' Purdy v. R. A. McWhirr Co., 350 Mass. 769, 215 N.E.2d 92. Navien v. Cohen, 268 Mass. 427, 431, 167 N.E. 666. 2. Apart from any direct evidence of negligence, we believe that the jury......
-
La Fleur v. Cyr
...fell from unexplained causes when no one was on or about the roof of a booth to which the awning was connected; Purdy v. R. A. McWhirr Co., 350 Mass. 769, 215 N.E.2d 92 (1966), where, in holding that the trial judge correctly denied a directed verdict, it was said that the plaintiff was not......
-
Murgo v. Home Depot Usa, Inc.
...likelihood that [his] injuries came from an act of negligence for which the defendant was responsible." Purdy v. R.A. McWhirr Co., 350 Mass. 769, 769, 215 N.E.2d 92 (1966). Specifically, in the instant case, there are grounds to believe that even if Home Depot or one of its employees did no......
-
Kelly v. LAHN TRANSPORTATION, 6861.
...this accident happened, she does have the burden of proving that it was caused by the negligence of defendant. Purdy v. R. A. McWhirr Co., 350 Mass. 769, 215 N.E.2d 92 (1966). This is an affirmative burden which cannot be left to surmise, conjecture or imagination. Howard v. Lowell Coca-Col......