From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deltufo v. Morganelli

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Feb 9, 1939
29 N.E.2d 189 (Mass. 1939)

Opinion

February 9, 1939.

R.J. Hartford, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief.

G.B. Rowell, for the defendant.


Exceptions overruled. Direction of a verdict for the defendant on the plaintiff's opening was not error. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff in making the opening "did not make a complete statement of all facts and inference of facts within his knowledge." First National Bank of Bridgeport v. Groves, 269 Mass. 161, 165. Sandler v. Green, 287 Mass. 404, 406. The plaintiff, according to the opening statement, was a social guest — a licensee — and consequently could not recover on the first count alleging ordinary negligence. Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578. Gross negligence as alleged in the second count is not shown by the statement. Nor is any ground shown for recovery under the third count alleging statutory violation and public nuisance. See Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578; Garland v. Stetson, 292 Mass. 95, 101-102; Wynn v. Sullivan, 294 Mass. 562, 565; Aldworth v. F.W. Woolworth Co. 295 Mass. 344, 347.


Summaries of

Deltufo v. Morganelli

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Feb 9, 1939
29 N.E.2d 189 (Mass. 1939)
Case details for

Deltufo v. Morganelli

Case Details

Full title:MARY DELTUFO vs. MICHAELANGELO MORGANELLI

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Feb 9, 1939

Citations

29 N.E.2d 189 (Mass. 1939)
302 Mass. 604

Citing Cases

LAPRADE v. H.S. GERE SONS, INC

Wilkinson v. New England Tel. Tel. Co. 327 Mass. 132, 135 (1951) ("Nowhere in the opening statement, . . . is…

Douglas v. Whittaker

Stevens v. Nichols, 155 Mass. 472, 474. Hey v. Prime, 197 Mass. 474, 475. Berry v. Newton Boston Street…