Nevanranta v. Koski

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Nevanranta v. Koski

138 N.E.2d 376, 335 Mass. 760

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 29, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 138 N.E.2d 376 (Nevanranta v. Koski) 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

Nevanranta v. Koski, 138 N.E.2d 376, 335 Mass. 760 (Mass. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The defendant excepted to the denial of her. motion for a directed verdict and to the admission of certain medical evidence. The action was to recover for personal injuries incurred on January 28, 1951, in Foxboro caused by the alleged gross negligence of the defendant in operating an automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a guest. There was evidence of persistence in a negligent course of conduct over an appreciable period of time culminating in an accident sufficient under our decisions to warrant a finding for the'plaintiff. See Dombrowski v. Gedman, 299 Mass. 87; O’Neill v. McDonald, 301 Mass. 256, 259; McGaffigan v. Kennedy, 302 Mass. 12, 14-15. There was no error in finding the attending physician of the plaintiff, who was a general practitioner, qualified to give an opinion that the accident was a contributing cause of the plaintiff’s tuberculosis which subsequently developed and in allowing his testimony to this effect to stand. See Hardiman v. Brown, 162 Mass. 585, 587.

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

Exceptions overruled. The defendant excepted to the denial of her. motion for a directed verdict and to the admission of certain medical evidence. The action was to recover for personal injuries incurred on January 28, 1951, in Foxboro caused by the alleged gross negligence of the defendant in operating an automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a guest. There was evidence of persistence in a negligent course of conduct over an appreciable period of time culminating in an accident sufficient under our decisions to warrant a finding for the'plaintiff. See Dombrowski v. Gedman, 299 Mass. 87; O’Neill v. McDonald, 301 Mass. 256, 259; McGaffigan v. Kennedy, 302 Mass. 12, 14-15. There was no error in finding the attending physician of the plaintiff, who was a general practitioner, qualified to give an opinion that the accident was a contributing cause of the plaintiff’s tuberculosis which subsequently developed and in allowing his testimony to this effect to stand. See Hardiman v. Brown, 162 Mass. 585, 587.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 376, 335 Mass. 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevanranta-v-koski-mass-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack