Cleary v. St. George

8 Citing cases

  1. Spano v. Wilson Tisdale Co.

    361 Mass. 209 (Mass. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    We conclude that the case before us more nearly resembles a line of decisions involving pedestrians, wherein we ruled that a directed verdict for the defendant motor vehicle operator was required because no inference of the defendant's negligence was permissible. Lynch v. Krancer, 302 Mass. 593. Luvera v. DeCaro, 317 Mass. 222. Rose v. Silveira, 318 Mass. 709. Tamagno v. Conley, 322 Mass. 218. Woods v. DeMont, 322 Mass. 233. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245. Helie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22. Callahan v. Lach, 338 Mass. 233. Parsons v. Ryan, 340 Mass. 245. Falvey v. Hamelburg, 347 Mass. 430. Exceptions overruled.

  2. Commonwealth v. Daniels

    269 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 1971)

    Commonwealth v. Makarewicz, 333 Mass. 575, 593-594. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 250. The second alleged error assigned is the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence based on confessions relative to the robbery made to the police by various individuals after the defendant had been sentenced.

  3. Stewart v. Worcester Gas Light Co.

    170 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. 1960)   Cited 37 times
    Finding of negligence warranted, without expert testimony, where gas company closed shutoff on gas service pipe in plaintiff's cellar and removed meter but did not close pipe shutoff at street, which contributed to subsequent gas explosion in house

    Even if the jury did not believe that Fleming was sent only to convey the plans, such disbelief would not establish affirmatively a broader purpose in sending him. See Zarrillo v. Stone, 317 Mass. 510, 512; Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 249. Neither express nor apparent authority (see Thalin v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co. Inc. 338 Mass. 67, 70-71) to do more can be inferred from the service slip or the use of a gas company automobile.

  4. Helie v. Goldstein

    153 N.E.2d 666 (Mass. 1958)   Cited 5 times

    Luvera v. DeCaro, 317 Mass. 222, 223-224. Rose v. Silveira, 318 Mass. 709, 711. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 249. Exceptions sustained.Judgment for the defendant.

  5. O'Connell v. Esso Standard Oil Co.

    337 Mass. 639 (Mass. 1958)   Cited 9 times

    See Burger v. Fischer Baking Co. 338 Pa. 110; Schalow v. Oakley, 18 Wn.2d 347, 353. Cf. Mitchell v. Atkins, 192 N.C. 376. Since the jury would not be warranted in drawing an inference that the defendant's servant was travelling at the time of the accident in violation of G.L.c. 89, § 1, there was no evidence of any negligence of Donovan. Nager v. Reid, 240 Mass. 211. Ellis v. Ellison, 275 Mass. 272. Boyd v. Mills, 278 Mass. 132. Carney v. Casey, 302 Mass. 73. Luvera v. DeCaro, 317 Mass. 222. Woods v. DeMont, 322 Mass. 233. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245. Cf. Hubbard v. Conti, 321 Mass. 743; Barow v. Modoono, 325 Mass. 522; Hartson v. Winship, 326 Mass. 380. The motion for directed verdicts should have been allowed.

  6. McNally v. Union Street Railway Company

    146 N.E.2d 374 (Mass. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    laintiff tended to show that other passengers were bumped and a lady was thrown from her seat; that, as the bus approached Kempton Street, the driver turned his head and "looked to his right down Kempton Street . . . and then when he looked forward the car ahead of him had come to a stop and he stopped immediately" applying his brakes "suddenly." Even if the stop was an emergency one, caused by the sudden moving into the line of traffic of a "truck up forward," there was evidence from which negligence could be found from all the circumstances taken together including (a) the inattentiveness of the driver in turning to look down Kempton Street (see Conrad v. Mazman, 287 Mass. 229, 233), (b) the short distance at which the driver was following the automobile ahead of him and (c) the abruptness of the stop, from which the jury might have inferred (see Morton v. Dobson, 307 Mass. 394, 398; Mitchell v. Silverstein, 320 Mass. 524, 526-527; compare McGrath v. Parsons, 312 Mass. 476, 478-479; Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 247-249) a speed somewhat above the ten to twelve miles per hour admitted by the driver. Although the driver's conduct was plainly less subject to adverse appraisal than that considered in the cases next cited, there was evidence requiring submission of the case to the jury.

  7. Hannon v. Hayes-Bickford Lunch System, Inc.

    145 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. 1957)   Cited 23 times

    We need not consider whether without distortion or undue fragmentation of Huntley's testimony (see Kettleman v. Atkins, 229 Mass. 89, 91-92; Sturman v. Davis, 321 Mass. 442, 444; Woods v. DeMont, 322 Mass. 233, 235) the jury could believe that he saw a condition of rot in one trip each way over the stairs and yet believe that the defect was hidden, for the plaintiff by his own testimony has shown that he knew as definitely that there was risk of injury from the use of the cracked step as if he had been warned to be careful in its use by Manning and Huntley. The plaintiff cannot assert that he is entitled to warning of a risk of injury of which he already knew, even if it be assumed that there is no room for conjecture whether the accident happened because the cracked step gave way rather than because the plaintiff slipped for an unknown cause. Compare Woods v. DeMont, 322 Mass. 233, 235; Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245, 249; Winer v. Boston Maine Railroad, post, 757. The action of the trial judge in entering a verdict under leave reserved was correct.

  8. Watson v. Wilson

    141 N.E.2d 380 (Mass. 1957)

    If we assume that the death of the intestate was caused by the truck operated by the defendant, see Atlas v. Silsbury-Gamble Motors Co. 278 Mass. 279; Cochrane v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 281 Mass. 386; Smith v. Rapid Transit Inc. 317 Mass. 469, the evidence was insufficient to show it was due to the negligence of the defendant. Jabbour v. Central Construction Co. 238 Mass. 453. Nager v. Reid, 240 Mass. 211. Rizzittelli v. Vestine, 246 Mass. 391. Whalen v. Mutrie, 247 Mass. 316. McGrimley v. Jameson, 297 Mass. 280. Luvera v. DeCaro, 317 Mass. 222. Cleary v. St. George, 335 Mass. 245.