Deltufo v. Morganelli

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Deltufo v. Morganelli

29 N.E.2d 189, 302 Mass. 604, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1161

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 9, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 N.E.2d 189 (Deltufo v. Morganelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deltufo v. Morganelli, 29 N.E.2d 189, 302 Mass. 604, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1161 (Mass. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. Direction of a verdict for the defendant on the plaintiff's opening was not error. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff in making the opening "did not make a complete statement of all facts and inference of facts within his knowledge.” First National Bank of Bridgeport v. Groves, 269 Mass. 161, 165. Sandler v. Green, 287 Mass. 404, 406. The plaintiff, according to the opening statement, was a social guest — a licensee — and consequently could not recover on the first count alleging ordinary negligence. Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578. Gross negligence as alleged in the second count is not shown by the statement. Nor is any ground shown for recovery under the third count alleging statutory violation and public nuisance. See Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578; Garland v. Stetson, 292 Mass. 95, 101-102; Wynn v. Sullivan, 294 Mass. 562, 565; Aldworth v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 295 Mass. 344, 347.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Exceptions overruled. Direction of a verdict for the defendant on the plaintiff's opening was not error. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff in making the opening "did not make a complete statement of all facts and inference of facts within his knowledge.” First National Bank of Bridgeport v. Groves, 269 Mass. 161, 165. Sandler v. Green, 287 Mass. 404, 406. The plaintiff, according to the opening statement, was a social guest — a licensee — and consequently could not recover on the first count alleging ordinary negligence. Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578. Gross negligence as alleged in the second count is not shown by the statement. Nor is any ground shown for recovery under the third count alleging statutory violation and public nuisance. See Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578; Garland v. Stetson, 292 Mass. 95, 101-102; Wynn v. Sullivan, 294 Mass. 562, 565; Aldworth v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 295 Mass. 344, 347.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.E.2d 189, 302 Mass. 604, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deltufo-v-morganelli-mass-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack