Menard v. Collins

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Menard v. Collins

9 N.E.2d 387, 298 Mass. 40, 1937 Mass. LEXIS 810

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 29, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 N.E.2d 387 (Menard v. Collins) 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

Menard v. Collins, 9 N.E.2d 387, 298 Mass. 40, 1937 Mass. LEXIS 810 (Mass. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

These are actions of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries arising out of a collision of automobiles. Verdicts were returned for the plaintiffs. The only questions argued by the defendant relate to damages to the plaintiff Rita Menard. The defendant in his brief states those issues to be as follows: “Did the trial justice err — (a) In permitting a physician for the plaintiff Rita Menard, p.p.a., to testify that probably, in his opinion, future medical attention may probably be required; and — (6) In charging the jury that they may find for the plaintiff Rita Menard, p.p.a., where 'there is a reasonable probability that she may be called upon to have to undergo any further or future medical treatment. ’ ”

The attending physician gave testimony to the effect that when he last examined this plaintiff he found a lump on the upper eyelid which would probably require excision in the future. There was no error in the admission of the evidence or in the charge. The case on this point is covered in principle by Pullen v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 356. It is not necessary to review decisions from other jurisdictions cited by the defendant.

Other exceptions taken by the defendant are not argued and are treated as waived.

Exceptions overruled.

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

By the Court.

These are actions of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries arising out of a collision of automobiles. Verdicts were returned for the plaintiffs. The only questions argued by the defendant relate to damages to the plaintiff Rita Menard. The defendant in his brief states those issues to be as follows: “Did the trial justice err — (a) In permitting a physician for the plaintiff Rita Menard, p.p.a., to testify that probably, in his opinion, future medical attention may probably be required; and — (6) In charging the jury that they may find for the plaintiff Rita Menard, p.p.a., where 'there is a reasonable probability that she may be called upon to have to undergo any further or future medical treatment. ’ ”

The attending physician gave testimony to the effect that when he last examined this plaintiff he found a lump on the upper eyelid which would probably require excision in the future. There was no error in the admission of the evidence or in the charge. The case on this point is covered in principle by Pullen v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 356. It is not necessary to review decisions from other jurisdictions cited by the defendant.

Other exceptions taken by the defendant are not argued and are treated as waived.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.E.2d 387, 298 Mass. 40, 1937 Mass. LEXIS 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menard-v-collins-mass-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack