O'Day v. O'Day

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

O'Day v. O'Day

215 N.E.2d 896, 350 Mass. 778

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 8, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 N.E.2d 896 (O'Day v. O'Day) 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

O'Day v. O'Day, 215 N.E.2d 896, 350 Mass. 778 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of tort for personal injury to a guest in a car driven by one of the defendants and owned by the other, there was a declaration in four counts, two against each defendant respectively alleging negligence and gross negligence. Verdicts were directed on the plaintiff’s opening statement on three of the counts. Evidence was taken on the count alleging negligence against the operator. When the plaintiff had concluded her evidence on that count the court directed a verdict for the defendant operator. The plaintiff excepted to the directed verdicts on three counts. There was no error. The guest was engaged in a shopping errand with and for her daughter-in-law springing solely from “casual intrafamily cooperation” which made her status no more than a licensee. Pandiscio v. Bowen, 342 Mass. 435, 438. The accident arose from momentary inattention where no unusual hazard was presented. There was no gross negligence. Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 591, 592. Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 294 Mass. 170,172.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of tort for personal injury to a guest in a car driven by one of the defendants and owned by the other, there was a declaration in four counts, two against each defendant respectively alleging negligence and gross negligence. Verdicts were directed on the plaintiff’s opening statement on three of the counts. Evidence was taken on the count alleging negligence against the operator. When the plaintiff had concluded her evidence on that count the court directed a verdict for the defendant operator. The plaintiff excepted to the directed verdicts on three counts. There was no error. The guest was engaged in a shopping errand with and for her daughter-in-law springing solely from “casual intrafamily cooperation” which made her status no more than a licensee. Pandiscio v. Bowen, 342 Mass. 435, 438. The accident arose from momentary inattention where no unusual hazard was presented. There was no gross negligence. Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 591, 592. Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 294 Mass. 170,172.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.E.2d 896, 350 Mass. 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oday-v-oday-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack