Webster v. Bracci

202 N.E.2d 259, 348 Mass. 770
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 29, 1964·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. In an action of tort for negligence arising from a head-on collision of the plaintiff’s and the corporate defendant’s motor vehicles during a heavy, whirling snowstorm when only twelve feet of the roadway was available for travel and visibility was extremely poor, the judge allowed, subject to the plaintiff’s exception, the defendants’ motion for a new trial which recited that the verdicts for the plaintiff were against the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the law. The judge’s indorsement granting the motion “[f]or the reasons set forth in the defendants’ motion” complied with the requirements of G. L. c. 231, § 128. Anti v. Boston Elev. Ry. 247 Mass. 1, 4-6. Carver-Beaver Yarn Co. Inc. v. Wolfson, 249 Mass. 257, 258-259. The considerations which should guide a judge in the disposition of a motion for a new trial and which govern our review of his action are fully set out by Qua, C. J., in Hartman v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 323 Mass. 56, 59-61, and are applicable here. No basis for reversal appears.

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

Webster v. Bracci, 202 N.E.2d 259, 348 Mass. 770 (Mass. 1964).

202 N.E.2d 259 (Webster v. Bracci) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grenier v. City of New Bedford
344 N.E.2d 215 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1976)