Long v. Kaplan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtWhittemore, J.
These are the defendants’ exceptions to the denial of their motions for directed verdicts in an action of tort. The motions should have been allowed, as the evidence is insufficient to permit a finding of negligence.
The plaintiff was employed as a truck driver by a firm engaged in the waste paper business. On the day of the accident he was on the premises of the defendants, who *95were partners in the junk business, to pick up certain bales of rags. A bale, while being loaded onto the truck, fell or slid to the side and came to rest “with one corner on the truck and the other upper-hand corner”…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Engel v. Boston Ice Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Carpenter v. Sinclair Refining Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Gilmore v. KilbournMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Artz v. HurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Poulin v. H. A. Tobey Lumber Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- Stackpole v. Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1970