Manning v. Nobile

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there were no facts supporting a high probability of substantial harm where defendant supplied a hotel party with liquor but no bartender and a guest later drove under the influence
• affirming trial court’s granting of summary judgment because plaintiff could not meet burden of proof for recklessness
• setting forth reasons for refusing to impose same duty of care on social host as is imposed on licensed establishment
• applying the wilful, wanton, and reckless standard under G. L. c. 231, § 85T
• “The terms ‘wilful,’ ‘wanton,’ and ‘reckless’ are often used interchangeably. Nothing turns on the absence of one or another of these terms”
• “The terms ‘wilful,’ “wanton,’ and ‘reckless’ are often used interchangeably. Nothing turns on the absence of one or another of these terms”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).