Home NILS HODNE & others vs. VERNON E. SMITH.

356 Mass. 740

January 30, 1970

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The plaintiffs were passengers in an automobile driven by the defendant which collided with a bus. There were verdicts for the plaintiffs on the counts alleging ordinary negligence. The case is here on the defendant's exceptions to the denial of his motion for directed verdicts. The parties were members of a car pool. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs are "entitled to recover only upon proof of gross negligence." We do not agree. We see no need for a detailed recital of the facts. The legal principle involved has been stated many times and does not require repetition. See Taylor v. Goldstein, 329 Mass. 161 , 164-165; Posner v. Minsky, 353 Mass. 656 . There was no error in submitting the case to the jury.

Exceptions overruled.

Home WILLIAM HERBITS vs. HIGH-SPEED PROCESS PRINTING CORPORATION.

356 Mass. 740

January 30, 1970

The plaintiff, an attorney, brought an action of contract against the defendant for legal and other services. The matter was initially heard before an auditor, findings of fact not final, and thereafter before a judge and a jury. The jury found for the plaintiff on two counts of his declaration, and the defendant has brought the matter to us on a substitute outline bill of exceptions. We find no error in the admission of certain evidence relating to the general knowledge of the defendant's principal officer concerning the organization and operation of corporations. The trial judge on two occasions

Page 741

instructed the jury on the limited effect of this evidence and there was no abuse of discretion. Nor do we discern error in the exclusion of a question directed to the plaintiff which called for a conclusion of law subsequently covered in the charge. In the charge itself the trial judge instructed the jury on two occasions that if the plaintiff was acting in any respect as attorney for a corporate client then he had "a duty of dealing with the corporation in the highest degree of good faith." This language in simple terms imported all that was contained in the requests and was, if anything, stronger than that in the requests. See Campbell v. Shea, 332 Mass. 422 , 425, and cases cited; G. L. c. 231, Section 38. We will no discuss a further issue argued by the defendant but not before us upon any exception saved by it at the trial.

Exceptions overruled.