Legal Opinion

Dombrowski v. Gedman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 27, 1937PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

The only question before us is whether the auditor’s subsidiary findings require a conclusion at variance with his ultimate finding that the defendant’s gross negligence caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. Brooks v. Davis, 294 Mass. 236, 238. Savin v. Block, 297 Mass. 487, 490.

Pertinent subsidiary findings were these: At 10:45 in the evening of June 16, 1934, the defendant was giving the plaintiffs “a ride home” from a dance hall at Lake Quinsigamond in Worcester. There was a dirt road, averaging about fourteen feet in width and quite rough in spots, for about seven tenths of a mile, after which…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. McKenna v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  2. Richards v. DonohueMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  3. Brooks v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  4. Connors v. BolandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  5. Desroches v. HollandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Toczko v. ArmentanoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
  2. Driscoll v. PaganoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  3. DeSimone v. PedontiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Hastings v. FlahertyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  5. Williamson-Green v. Equipment 4 Rent, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2016

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API