Doherty v. Venios

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Doherty v. Venios

324 N.E.2d 905, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 745

DecidedMarch 26, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 324 N.E.2d 905 (Doherty v. Venios) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doherty v. Venios, 324 N.E.2d 905, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 745 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In this wrongful death action arising out of a 1968 motor vehicle accident the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $8,750. The sole issue raised by the plaintiff’s bill of exceptions concerns certain portions of the judge’s instructions to the jury on the standard of the defendant’s “culpability” under G. L. c. 229, § 2, as amended through St. 1967, c. 666, § 1. Portions of the charge to which exception was taken could have been understood by the jury as requiring a finding of willful misconduct by the defendant in order to assess the $50,000 maximum figure permitted under the statute (St. 1965, c. 683, § 1). In that respect the instructions were erroneous. See Toczko v. Armentano, 341 Mass. 474, 481-482 (1960). However, the jury’s verdict demonstrated that they found only a minor degree of culpability, and no error is shown in (nor was any exception taken to) the judge’s charge in any respect other than the degree of culpability necessary for the maxi[726]*726mum recovery. The charge was not exemplary, but on the view of the case obviously taken by the jury, any error in emphasis was harmless.

The case was submitted on briefs. Thomas E. Connolly for the plaintiff. Charles W. Goddard for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this wrongful death action arising out of a 1968 motor vehicle accident the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $8,750. The sole issue raised by the plaintiff’s bill of exceptions concerns certain portions of the judge’s instructions to the jury on the standard of the defendant’s “culpability” under G. L. c. 229, § 2, as amended through St. 1967, c. 666, § 1. Portions of the charge to which exception was taken could have been understood by the jury as requiring a finding of willful misconduct by the defendant in order to assess the $50,000 maximum figure permitted under the statute (St. 1965, c. 683, § 1). In that respect the instructions were erroneous. See Toczko v. Armentano, 341 Mass. 474, 481-482 (1960). However, the jury’s verdict demonstrated that they found only a minor degree of culpability, and no error is shown in (nor was any exception taken to) the judge’s charge in any respect other than the degree of culpability necessary for the maxi[726]*726mum recovery. The charge was not exemplary, but on the view of the case obviously taken by the jury, any error in emphasis was harmless.

The case was submitted on briefs. Thomas E. Connolly for the plaintiff. Charles W. Goddard for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 N.E.2d 905, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doherty-v-venios-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack