Normandin v. Aho

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Normandin v. Aho

263 N.E.2d 467, 358 Mass. 802

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 28, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 N.E.2d 467 (Normandin v. Aho) 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

Normandin v. Aho, 263 N.E.2d 467, 358 Mass. 802 (Mass. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In these actions of tort for damages arising from the alleged negligence of the defendant corporation and the individual defendant in the operation of a motor vehicle, the judge in the Superior Court after re-transfer of the cases from the District Court directed verdicts for the defendants. The findings in the District Court were for the defendants. Their'introduction in evidence carried the prima facie consequences stated in Lubell v. First Natl. Stores, Inc. 342 Mass. 161,165, and reiterated in Fulton v. Gauthier, 357 Mass. 116. Other evidence was introduced. None of it, however, tended to establish, among other necessary elements, the identity of the individual defendant as the operator of the vehicle or that the vehicle which was allegedly in contact with the plaintiffs was registered in the name of the corporate defendant as owner, or that the operator was acting as the agent or employee of the corporate defendant. Other infirmities in the plaintiffs’ proof need not be discussed.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In these actions of tort for damages arising from the alleged negligence of the defendant corporation and the individual defendant in the operation of a motor vehicle, the judge in the Superior Court after re-transfer of the cases from the District Court directed verdicts for the defendants. The findings in the District Court were for the defendants. Their'introduction in evidence carried the prima facie consequences stated in Lubell v. First Natl. Stores, Inc. 342 Mass. 161,165, and reiterated in Fulton v. Gauthier, 357 Mass. 116. Other evidence was introduced. None of it, however, tended to establish, among other necessary elements, the identity of the individual defendant as the operator of the vehicle or that the vehicle which was allegedly in contact with the plaintiffs was registered in the name of the corporate defendant as owner, or that the operator was acting as the agent or employee of the corporate defendant. Other infirmities in the plaintiffs’ proof need not be discussed.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 N.E.2d 467, 358 Mass. 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/normandin-v-aho-mass-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack