Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/298/298mass463.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:56:23+00:00

Document:
RAMONI CONTE vs. GUY MIZZONI.
A finding of negligence of the driver of an automobile would not have been warranted by evidence merely that while going slowly it struck a child who suddenly ran into its path from in front of a vehicle parked at the side of the street.
TORT. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated August 16, 1935.
On removal to the Superior Court, the action was heard by an auditor and then tried before M. Morton, J., who ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
S. S. Bean, for the defendant.
RUGG, C.J. This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained in August, 1935, by the plaintiff, then five years old, against the operator of a motor vehicle which struck the plaintiff on a public street. The case was referred to an auditor, whose findings of fact were not final, and then was tried to a jury.
no evidence other than the auditor's report. At the close of the evidence, on motion of the defendant a verdict was directed in his favor.
The auditor's report is not embodied in the exceptions. All that is disclosed concerning it is that it was in favor of the defendant. An auditor's report is prima facie evidence of such matters as are embraced in the order of reference. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 221, § 56. In the absence of controlling evidence either set forth in, or introduced outside, the report, the statute gives it such special evidential value as to require its acceptance as final by judge or jury. "It cannot be disbelieved as can the uncontradicted testimony of a witness. Since it is prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts found, if it stands alone and is unexplained, it maintains the proposition, and warrants and even requires the conclusion to support which it is introduced." Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co. Inc. 280 Mass. 243, 246. Wakefield v. American Surety Co. 209 Mass. 173, 176. Scott v. Lieberman, 284 Mass. 325, 327. There is nothing inconsistent with this in Savin v. Block, 297 Mass. 487.
The evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff and already narrated was not sufficient to support a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. It goes no further than to show that the plaintiff suddenly came in the path of the automobile of the defendant travelling at a comparatively slow speed and could not have been seen more than an instant if at all before the collision. On this point the case falls within the scope of numerous authorities. Lovett v. Scott, 232 Mass. 541, 542. Rizzittelli v. Vestine, 246 Mass. 391, 392. Whalen v. Mutrie, 247 Mass. 316, 318. McGrimley v. Jameson, 297 Mass. 280. There was no evidence to control the effect of the auditor's report.
The verdict rightly was directed in favor of the defendant.

References: § 56
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.