Smith v. Hogan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Smith v. Hogan

185 N.E. 23, 282 Mass. 573, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 907

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 6, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 185 N.E. 23 (Smith v. Hogan) 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

Smith v. Hogan, 185 N.E. 23, 282 Mass. 573, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 907 (Mass. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court. This action of tort was brought to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation by the defendant of an automobile. There was evidence tending to show that on a macadam street, twenty-four feet wide, between six and seven o’clock on a January evening when there was a light mist, at a place directly across from a street light, the defendant, driving his automobile with lights lighted, there being no other travel on the street, struck the intestate, while walking, with such violence as to break several bones, severely to maim and bruise him, and to cause fatal injuries, at the same time bending the headlight of the automobile and causing other defacement to it. The automobile went more than seventy feet before being stopped. It is unnecessary to narrate the evidence in detail. It amply warranted a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant and of due care on the part of the intestate. Powers v. Loring, 231 Mass. 458. Alpert v. Ellis, 236 Mass. 404. Durling v. Lamontain, 277 Mass. 517. McGuiggan v. Atkinson, 278 Mass. 264. Clark v. C. E. Fay Co. 281 Mass. 240, 242, 243.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

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

By the Court. This action of tort was brought to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation by the defendant of an automobile. There was evidence tending to show that on a macadam street, twenty-four feet wide, between six and seven o’clock on a January evening when there was a light mist, at a place directly across from a street light, the defendant, driving his automobile with lights lighted, there being no other travel on the street, struck the intestate, while walking, with such violence as to break several bones, severely to maim and bruise him, and to cause fatal injuries, at the same time bending the headlight of the automobile and causing other defacement to it. The automobile went more than seventy feet before being stopped. It is unnecessary to narrate the evidence in detail. It amply warranted a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant and of due care on the part of the intestate. Powers v. Loring, 231 Mass. 458. Alpert v. Ellis, 236 Mass. 404. Durling v. Lamontain, 277 Mass. 517. McGuiggan v. Atkinson, 278 Mass. 264. Clark v. C. E. Fay Co. 281 Mass. 240, 242, 243.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.E. 23, 282 Mass. 573, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hogan-mass-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack