Muni-Tech, Inc. v. Henry
Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, P.J.
The plaintiff, Muni-Tech, Inc. (“Muni-Tech”), appeals the bench-trial judgment in favor of the defendant, Mark Henry (“Henry”), claiming that because Henry had stipulated at trial that Tanisha Phifer (“Phifer”) was driving his car with unrestricted permission when she struck and damaged Muni-Tech’s traffic signal pole, Henry should have been found liable for repair costs by operation of G.L.c. 231, §85A.1 We affirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal.
On October 24, 2004, Phifer struck and damaged Muni-Tech’s traffic signal and mast arm in Dorchester. At trial, Muni-Tech and Henry stipulated…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Jupin v. KaskMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Elias v. Unisys Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Zarrillo. v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Lily Transportation Corp. v. Royal Institutional Services, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Daniels v. CicconeMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2012