Mernagh v. Lillie

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mernagh v. Lillie

45 N.E.2d 473, 312 Mass. 697, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 880

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 27, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 N.E.2d 473 (Mernagh v. Lillie) 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

Mernagh v. Lillie, 45 N.E.2d 473, 312 Mass. 697, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 880 (Mass. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. In this action arising out of the collision of two automobiles there was no error in admitting the evidence of a “skid mark” fifty-one feet long observed on the surface of the roadway shortly (as could be found) after the accident and leading to “the right side” of the automobile in which the plaintiff had been riding. A finding that this mark had been caused by that automobile at the time of the accident would be supported by other evidence in the case and would be warranted notwithstanding evidence that the automobile had been moved before the marks were observed in a manner and to an extent which could be found to have been “straight back about one foot.” The evidence as to this mark had some tendency to show what actually happened at the time of the collision. Monaghan v. Keith Oil Corp. 281 Mass. 129, 137. Jackson v. Anthony, 282 Mass. 540. Hall v. Shain, 291 Mass. 506. Curtin v. Benjamin, 305 Mass. 489, 492. Wade v. Buchanan, 306 Mass. 318, 321, 323. We find no error in the way in which it was presented and admitted. It is plain that there was evidence requiring the submission of the case to the jury. White v. Calcutt, 269 Mass. 252. Beebe v. Randall, 304 Mass. 207. We have considered all exceptions argued.

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

Exceptions overruled. In this action arising out of the collision of two automobiles there was no error in admitting the evidence of a “skid mark” fifty-one feet long observed on the surface of the roadway shortly (as could be found) after the accident and leading to “the right side” of the automobile in which the plaintiff had been riding. A finding that this mark had been caused by that automobile at the time of the accident would be supported by other evidence in the case and would be warranted notwithstanding evidence that the automobile had been moved before the marks were observed in a manner and to an extent which could be found to have been “straight back about one foot.” The evidence as to this mark had some tendency to show what actually happened at the time of the collision. Monaghan v. Keith Oil Corp. 281 Mass. 129, 137. Jackson v. Anthony, 282 Mass. 540. Hall v. Shain, 291 Mass. 506. Curtin v. Benjamin, 305 Mass. 489, 492. Wade v. Buchanan, 306 Mass. 318, 321, 323. We find no error in the way in which it was presented and admitted. It is plain that there was evidence requiring the submission of the case to the jury. White v. Calcutt, 269 Mass. 252. Beebe v. Randall, 304 Mass. 207. We have considered all exceptions argued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.E.2d 473, 312 Mass. 697, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mernagh-v-lillie-mass-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack