Knox v. Lamoureaux

6 Citing cases

  1. Alholm v. Wareham

    371 Mass. 621 (Mass. 1976)   Cited 100 times
    In Alholm v. Wareham, 371 Mass. at 623, the "plaintiffs alleged that the town had maintained a public nuisance in the form of a town dump on property adjoining the public highway, the smoke from which severely impaired the visibility of travelers on the highway."

    Willis v. Gurry, 331 Mass. 19, 21 (1954). However, the evidence must contain facts from which reasonable inferences based on probabilities rather than possibilities may be drawn. Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958). Marcus v. Griggs, Inc., 334 Mass. 139 (1956).

  2. Rome v. Adams

    271 N.E.2d 365 (Mass. 1971)

    Manna v. Diebold Inc. 337 Mass. 754. Helie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22, 24. Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169-170. The trial judge properly directed a verdict for the defendant.

  3. Blair v. Keating

    238 N.E.2d 867 (Mass. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    See LeBlanc v. Atlantic Bldg. Supply Co. Inc. 323 Mass. 702, 706; Fucci v. W.W. Welch, Inc. 329 Mass. 467, 469; Helie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22, 24; Falvey v. Hamelburg, 347 Mass. 430, 435-436. See also Luvera v. DeCaro, 317 Mass. 222, 224; Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169-170. Cf. Fant v. Zurich Ins. Co. 160 So.2d 443, 446 (La. Ct. App.).

  4. Rivera v. Broad St. Enters., Inc.

    92 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)

    Although generally it is "the special province of the jury" to determine whether a party breached their duty of care, Jupin v. Kask, supra, "a verdict must rest on something more than surmise or conjecture." Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958). Here, the evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not warrant a finding that the Bar Room was negligent.

  5. Lameiras v. Corey

    429 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    See Mabardy v. Campo, 344 Mass. 459, 462 (1962). Compare Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958). They were not required "to point out the exact way in which the accident occurred as long as [they] showed a greater likelihood that her injury came from an act of neglect for which the defendant was responsible."

  6. St. Pierre v. Savage Arms

    1983 Mass. App. Div. 309 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

    And, it must be based on "probabilities rather than possibilities" and not the result of "mere speculation and conjecture". See Mullins v. Pine Manor College, supra, also at page 56; Carey v. General Motors Corp., 377 Mass. 736, 740 (1979); Marbardy v. Campo, 344 Mass. 459, 462 (1962); Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958); Hellie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22, 24 (1958); Ghoti Estates, Inc. v. Freda's Capri Restaurant, Inc., 332 Mass. 17 (1954). Further, the law does not require the plaintiff to point out the exact way an accident occurred; and, the burden of proof can be sustained by proving "there was a greater likelihood or probability that the harm complained of was due to causes for which the defendant was responsible than from any other cause."