Duncan v. Taaffe

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Duncan v. Taaffe

159 N.E.2d 533, 339 Mass. 519, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 834

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 N.E.2d 533 (Duncan v. Taaffe) 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

Duncan v. Taaffe, 159 N.E.2d 533, 339 Mass. 519, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 834 (Mass. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Counihan, J.

This is an action of tort originally brought against the city of Boston. Later by amendment Mary E. Taaffe, administratrix of the estate of Edward X. Taaffe, was joined as a defendant. In the action the plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her because of the negligence of each defendant in the maintenance of an unsafe and defective condition of a sidewalk in front of the premises numbered 77 Brighton Avenue in the Allston district of Boston on February 25, 1952. A^third [520]*520count in the declaration grounded upon a nuisance was waived.

The action was submitted to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant. Both defendants duly claimed exceptions to the denial of their respective motions for a directed verdict. The city of Boston did not perfect its exceptions. This action now comes before us solely upon the exception of the defendant Taaffe, administratrix, to the denial of her motion for a directed verdict.

After argument before the full court the defendant presented a motion that “said action be dismissed and that . . . judgment be entered for the defendant.” This motion was accompanied by an affidavit of one of counsel for the defendant which set forth that the execution issued against the city of Boston based upon the judgment entered against it had been satisfied in full by the city. Although the plaintiff and the city had notice of this motion and the affidavit supporting it, no counter affidavit has been filed.

The issue is now moot. See Hubrite Informal Frocks, Inc. v. Kramer, 297 Mass. 530, 534. The plaintiff is entitled to collect only the amount of one verdict. Without prejudice to the question of the right of the city to seek indemnity against the defendant for the amount the city paid to satisfy the execution against it, the entry here must be

Action dismissed as moot.

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

Counihan, J.

This is an action of tort originally brought against the city of Boston. Later by amendment Mary E. Taaffe, administratrix of the estate of Edward X. Taaffe, was joined as a defendant. In the action the plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her because of the negligence of each defendant in the maintenance of an unsafe and defective condition of a sidewalk in front of the premises numbered 77 Brighton Avenue in the Allston district of Boston on February 25, 1952. A^third [520]*520count in the declaration grounded upon a nuisance was waived.

The action was submitted to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant. Both defendants duly claimed exceptions to the denial of their respective motions for a directed verdict. The city of Boston did not perfect its exceptions. This action now comes before us solely upon the exception of the defendant Taaffe, administratrix, to the denial of her motion for a directed verdict.

After argument before the full court the defendant presented a motion that “said action be dismissed and that . . . judgment be entered for the defendant.” This motion was accompanied by an affidavit of one of counsel for the defendant which set forth that the execution issued against the city of Boston based upon the judgment entered against it had been satisfied in full by the city. Although the plaintiff and the city had notice of this motion and the affidavit supporting it, no counter affidavit has been filed.

The issue is now moot. See Hubrite Informal Frocks, Inc. v. Kramer, 297 Mass. 530, 534. The plaintiff is entitled to collect only the amount of one verdict. Without prejudice to the question of the right of the city to seek indemnity against the defendant for the amount the city paid to satisfy the execution against it, the entry here must be

Action dismissed as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.E.2d 533, 339 Mass. 519, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-taaffe-mass-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack