Wickes v. First National Stores Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Wickes v. First National Stores Inc.

196 N.E.2d 188, 346 Mass. 782, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 887

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 N.E.2d 188 (Wickes v. First National Stores Inc.) 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

Wickes v. First National Stores Inc., 196 N.E.2d 188, 346 Mass. 782, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 887 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. In this action of tort the plaintiff duly excepted to the allowance of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The facts [783]*783do not appear to be in dispute. The plaintiff was driven by her husband in his automobile to a parking space of a supermarket of the defendant. The plaintiff alighted from the automobile, shutting the door, and turned to face her husband, who was still in the driver’s seat. Suddenly the husband cried out to the plaintiff: “Look out.” She turned her head to the right and saw an empty shopping cart in motion approaching her. She tried to “grab the oncoming shopping cart to prevent it from striking her,” but lost her balance and fell to the ground and the shopping cart came to a stop on top of her. When the moving cart was first noticed by the plaintiff and her husband it was about one foot away from her. It was “the custom” of the defendant to allow customers to wheel out shopping carts to their cars. “It was . . . the . . . policy of the defendant to delegate an employee each night at the closing hour to inspect the parking area . . . for stray shopping carts . . . and collect the same and return them to the supermarket.” An investigator testified as an “expert” with reference to certain experiments he made at the locus. The principles of law governing the issues have been clearly established and require no citations. What caused the shopping cart to be put in motion was utterly conjectural. There was no error.

Daniel B. Bickford for the plaintiff. Thomas D. O’Brien for the defendant.

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

Exceptions overruled. In this action of tort the plaintiff duly excepted to the allowance of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The facts [783]*783do not appear to be in dispute. The plaintiff was driven by her husband in his automobile to a parking space of a supermarket of the defendant. The plaintiff alighted from the automobile, shutting the door, and turned to face her husband, who was still in the driver’s seat. Suddenly the husband cried out to the plaintiff: “Look out.” She turned her head to the right and saw an empty shopping cart in motion approaching her. She tried to “grab the oncoming shopping cart to prevent it from striking her,” but lost her balance and fell to the ground and the shopping cart came to a stop on top of her. When the moving cart was first noticed by the plaintiff and her husband it was about one foot away from her. It was “the custom” of the defendant to allow customers to wheel out shopping carts to their cars. “It was . . . the . . . policy of the defendant to delegate an employee each night at the closing hour to inspect the parking area . . . for stray shopping carts . . . and collect the same and return them to the supermarket.” An investigator testified as an “expert” with reference to certain experiments he made at the locus. The principles of law governing the issues have been clearly established and require no citations. What caused the shopping cart to be put in motion was utterly conjectural. There was no error.

Daniel B. Bickford for the plaintiff. Thomas D. O’Brien for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 188, 346 Mass. 782, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wickes-v-first-national-stores-inc-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack