History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mahoney v. Norcross
284 Mass. 153
Mass.
1933
Check Treatment
By the Court.

The case at bar falls within the general principle that in an action arising from a collision between automobiles at intersecting streets the due care and contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence, of the defendant present questions of fact. The finding in favor of the plaintiff imports a finding of all subsidiary facts essential to that conclusion and must stand unless unsupported by the evidence. Without summarizing the testimony it is enough to say that a finding in favor of the plaintiff was warranted. Ferreira v. Zaccolanti, 281 Mass. 91.

The defendant presented several requests for rulings which were refused because based on assumptions of facts not in accord with the facts found by the trial judge. It is not *154necessary to examine such requests because they are immaterial in view of the facts found. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 210 Mass. 8, 18. Castano v. Leone, 278 Mass. 429.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Mahoney v. Norcross
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Oct 7, 1933
Citation: 284 Mass. 153
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.