Cambria v. Jeffery case brief summary
29 N.E.2d 555 (1940)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff's servant and defendant were involved in a collision. Defendant had previously brought an action against plaintiff for negligence. The lower court found that the collision was caused by negligence of both drivers and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff then sued defendant for negligence. Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff but the lower court under leave reserved entered a verdict for defendant on the ground that the earlier judgment had adjudicated plaintiff through his servant, who was contributorily negligent. Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the directed verdict for defendant and entered judgment upon the verdict returned by the jury, holding that while the earlier judgment precluded defendant from recovering from plaintiff since plaintiff's servant who was operating the vehicle was contributorily negligent, it did not adjudicate whether plaintiff was negligent.
Suggested law school study materials




Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
29 N.E.2d 555 (1940)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed an order of the
Superior Court (Massachusetts), which set aside a jury verdict for
plaintiff and entered a verdict for defendant in plaintiff's action
against defendant for alleged negligence.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff's servant and defendant were involved in a collision. Defendant had previously brought an action against plaintiff for negligence. The lower court found that the collision was caused by negligence of both drivers and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff then sued defendant for negligence. Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff but the lower court under leave reserved entered a verdict for defendant on the ground that the earlier judgment had adjudicated plaintiff through his servant, who was contributorily negligent. Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that the earlier judgment determined that defendant could not recover against plaintiff.
- Defendant was found to be contributorily negligent.
- The previous finding that plaintiff's servant was negligent had no effect in producing that judgment.
- Therefore, that judgment did not adjudicate that plaintiff was negligent.
The court reversed the directed verdict for defendant and entered judgment upon the verdict returned by the jury, holding that while the earlier judgment precluded defendant from recovering from plaintiff since plaintiff's servant who was operating the vehicle was contributorily negligent, it did not adjudicate whether plaintiff was negligent.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment