Exceptions overruled. In this action of tort the plaintiff excepted to the direction of a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff also excepted to certain comments made by counsel for the defendant in final argument and to the refusal of the trial judge to "further instruct the jury on the law of gross negligence." In view of our conclusion, the latter two exceptions need not be commented upon. The plaintiff was a guest passenger in an automobile operated by the defendant. As the defendant's car entered the intersection of Hartford Street and Walpole Street in Dover, Massachusetts, it struck a "guy wire that was located 20 ft. from the side line of Hartford Street, went through the guy wire, across the small house lot, and down over the embankment," causing injuries to the plaintiff. At the time of the collision it was dark, raining, and there were several patches of fog. The evidence was not sufficient to permit a finding of gross negligence. Rosario v. Vasconcellos, 330 Mass. 170 , 172-173.
Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort which arises out of a collision on April 6, 1957, between a bus of the defendant Metropolitan Transit Authority, in which the plaintiffs were passengers, and an automobile owned and operated by the defendant Hines. The case was first tried in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston under the remand statute (G. L. c. 231, Section 102C, inserted by St. 1958, c. 369, Section 3) and the judge made a general finding for both defendants. Thereafter, the case was retransferred to the Superior Court where it was tried to a jury. The evidence at that trial consisted of testimony of two of the plaintiffs, certain answers to interrogatories propounded to each defendant, and the finding in the Municipal Court. The judge directed verdicts for the defendants on all counts, subject to the plaintiffs' exceptions. There was no error.
The testimony of the plaintiffs did not show any negligence on the part of either defendant. And the answers to interrogatories failed to establish negligence. These answers, as the judge ruled, were admissible only against the defendant making them. McNiff v. Boston Elev. Ry. 234 Mass. 252 . Bean v. Security Fur Storage Warehouse, Inc. 344 Mass. 674 , 675.