Hodne v. Smith

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hodne v. Smith

255 N.E.2d 597, 356 Mass. 740

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 N.E.2d 597 (Hodne v. Smith) 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

Hodne v. Smith, 255 N.E.2d 597, 356 Mass. 740 (Mass. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The plaintiffs were passengers in an automobile driven by the defendant which collided with a bus. There were verdicts for the plaintiffs on the counts alleging ordinary negligence. The case is here on the defendant’s exceptions to the denial of his motion for directed verdicts. The parties were members of a car pool. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs are “entitled to recover only upon proof of gross negligence.” We do not agree. We see no need for a detailed recital of the facts. The legal principle involved has been stated many times and does not require repetition. See Taylor v. Goldstein, 329 Mass. 161, 164-165; Posner v. Minsky, 353 Mass. 656. There was no error in submitting the case to the jury.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The plaintiffs were passengers in an automobile driven by the defendant which collided with a bus. There were verdicts for the plaintiffs on the counts alleging ordinary negligence. The case is here on the defendant’s exceptions to the denial of his motion for directed verdicts. The parties were members of a car pool. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs are “entitled to recover only upon proof of gross negligence.” We do not agree. We see no need for a detailed recital of the facts. The legal principle involved has been stated many times and does not require repetition. See Taylor v. Goldstein, 329 Mass. 161, 164-165; Posner v. Minsky, 353 Mass. 656. There was no error in submitting the case to the jury.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 N.E.2d 597, 356 Mass. 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodne-v-smith-mass-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack