Legal Opinion

Jordan v. Velozo

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 30, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

Under leave reserved pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 120, the trial judge, after a verdict for the plaintiff, ordered a verdict to be entered for the defendant. The plaintiff’s exception to this order must be sustained. We are unable to distinguish the case on this point from the decision in Boyd v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 272, which we regard as controlling. It was there held, on evidence substantially the same as that in the case before us, that a jury would be justified in finding the employer negligent in failing to warn the employee of dangers attending the operation of the sausage machine. A…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. RobbinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  2. Boyd v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Barnes v. Berkshire Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  2. Cincevich v. PatronskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. Jordan v. VelozoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API