Smith v. Brown
| Citation | 302 Mass. 432,19 N.E.2d 732 |
| Parties | DOROTHY S. SMITH v. JOSEPH L. BROWN. |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1939 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
November 2, 1937.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., DONAHUE LUMMUS, QUA, & RONAN, JJ.
Negligence Contributory, Motor vehicle. Evidence, Foreign law, Judicial notice.
Unless material law of another State is brought to the attention of this court by record or briefs, they are not required to take judicial notice of it under G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, Section 70. Per FIELD, C.J.
Under the law of Connecticut brought to the attention of this court, the evidence at the trial of an action here for personal injuries sustained by a woman in Connecticut when an automobile operated by her husband, beside whom she was sitting, on a very rainy and windy night collided with the rear of an unlighted motor truck which she did not see before the collision, did not require a finding of contributory negligence on her part.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated February 6, 1934. Before Broadhurst, J. a verdict was returned for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000.
The case was submitted on briefs.
R. Clason, & G.
J. Callahan, for the defendant.
H. A. Moran, for the plaintiff.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when the automobile in which she was riding collided with a motor truck in the State of Connecticut. The case comes before us on the exception of the defendant to the denial of a motion for a directed verdict in his favor. The only contention argued by him is that such a verdict should have been directed on the ground of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. There was no error in this respect.
Since the case was brought in this Commonwealth its law -- the law of the forum -- governs matters of procedure and the familiar rules apply that the burden of proving contributory negligence is on the defendant, that a verdict cannot be directed for the defendant on this ground unless the evidence as matter of law required a finding of such negligence, and that the plaintiff is bound by her own testimony except as there is other evidence more favorable to her (see G.L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 231 Section 85; Sooserian v. Clark, 287 Mass. 65 , 67), but the question whether the facts bearing on the plaintiff's conduct required to be found on the evidence show as matter of law that she was guilty of contributory negligence is a question of substantive law to be determined by the law of Connecticut -- the place where the collision occurred. Levy v. Steiger, 233 Mass. 600 . It is provided by G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, Section 70, that the court shall take judicial notice of the law of another State, but we are not required to take judicial notice of the law of another State except as it is brought to our attention by the record or the briefs. Bradbury v. Central Vermont Railway, 209 Mass. 230 , 234, and cases cited. Several Connecticut decisions have been brought to our attention.
Evidence upon which the plaintiff relies to show negligence of the defendant tended to show that the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding -- which was being operated by her husband -- struck the defendant's motor truck which was standing, without its tail light being lighted, on the right hand side of the highway. No contention is now made by the defendant that under Connecticut law it could not have been found that the defendant was negligent and we do not discuss this issue. The defendant's contention is, in substance, that the plaintiff failed to exercise due care for her own safety, as the result of which failure the collision occurred and she was injured.
Material testimony of the plaintiff was as follows: The accident occurred at night "in the neighborhood of quarter of eleven to eleven o'clock." It "was raining and blowing very hard." She was riding...
To continue reading
Request your trial