Thompson v. Graham

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Thompson v. Graham

215 N.E.2d 891, 350 Mass. 777

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 4, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 N.E.2d 891 (Thompson v. Graham) 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

Thompson v. Graham, 215 N.E.2d 891, 350 Mass. 777 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In this multiple action of tort for personal injuries, property damage, and consequential damages, the defendant excepted to certain admissions and exclusions of evidence, as well as to various portions of the judge’s charge, on the basis that the charge failed in properly apprising the jury of the law applicable to the case. We have reviewed the charge and, in our view, the jury were not properly instructed relative to the burden of proof, to the issues of negligence and due care, and to the status of the plaintiff, Herbert Thompson, in his ear in which he was a passenger at the time of the accident. We thus must conclude that the charge did not constitute a statement of the law to the jury sufficient in the circumstances. Bell v. Dorchester Theatre Co. 308 Mass. 118, 123-124. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 333 Mass. 512, 514.

Exceptions sustained.

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

In this multiple action of tort for personal injuries, property damage, and consequential damages, the defendant excepted to certain admissions and exclusions of evidence, as well as to various portions of the judge’s charge, on the basis that the charge failed in properly apprising the jury of the law applicable to the case. We have reviewed the charge and, in our view, the jury were not properly instructed relative to the burden of proof, to the issues of negligence and due care, and to the status of the plaintiff, Herbert Thompson, in his ear in which he was a passenger at the time of the accident. We thus must conclude that the charge did not constitute a statement of the law to the jury sufficient in the circumstances. Bell v. Dorchester Theatre Co. 308 Mass. 118, 123-124. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 333 Mass. 512, 514.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.E.2d 891, 350 Mass. 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-graham-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack