Leventhal v. American Airlines, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Leventhal v. American Airlines, Inc.

196 N.E.2d 924, 347 Mass. 766, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 904

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.E.2d 924 (Leventhal v. American Airlines, Inc.) 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

Leventhal v. American Airlines, Inc., 196 N.E.2d 924, 347 Mass. 766, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 904 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort for injuries sustained by the female plaintiff in New Jersey while a passenger in an airplane owned and operated by the defendant; and, by the male plaintiff, her husband, for consequential damages. The judge of the Superior Court directed verdicts for the defendant against both plaintiffs, who excepted. The plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the defendant was negligent but argue that “the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applies to this ease.” Res ipso loquitur is a rule permitting the jury to draw certain inferences in certain circumstances. Pinney v. Hall, 156 Mass. 225, 225-226. Thus, the applicability of res ipso loquitur is to be determined from the law of the forum. Restatement: Conflict of Laws, § 595. See Gould v. Boston [767]*767& Maine R.R. 276 Mass. 114, 117; Holland v. Boston & Maine R.R. 279 Mass. 342, 345; Peterson v. Boston & Maine R.R. 310 Mass. 45, 47-48; Harper & James, Law of Torts, § 30.2, p. 1686. Under the_ law of this Commonwealth, the doctrine of res ipso loquitur is not applicable to the facts in this case. Wilson v. Colonial Air Transport, Inc. 278 Mass. 420, 424-426.

Joseph E. Levine for the plaintiffs. Bobert Fulton, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

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

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort for injuries sustained by the female plaintiff in New Jersey while a passenger in an airplane owned and operated by the defendant; and, by the male plaintiff, her husband, for consequential damages. The judge of the Superior Court directed verdicts for the defendant against both plaintiffs, who excepted. The plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the defendant was negligent but argue that “the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applies to this ease.” Res ipso loquitur is a rule permitting the jury to draw certain inferences in certain circumstances. Pinney v. Hall, 156 Mass. 225, 225-226. Thus, the applicability of res ipso loquitur is to be determined from the law of the forum. Restatement: Conflict of Laws, § 595. See Gould v. Boston [767]*767& Maine R.R. 276 Mass. 114, 117; Holland v. Boston & Maine R.R. 279 Mass. 342, 345; Peterson v. Boston & Maine R.R. 310 Mass. 45, 47-48; Harper & James, Law of Torts, § 30.2, p. 1686. Under the_ law of this Commonwealth, the doctrine of res ipso loquitur is not applicable to the facts in this case. Wilson v. Colonial Air Transport, Inc. 278 Mass. 420, 424-426.

Joseph E. Levine for the plaintiffs. Bobert Fulton, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 924, 347 Mass. 766, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leventhal-v-american-airlines-inc-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack