Cain v. Southern Massachusetts Telephone Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two actions of tort described in the opinion. Writs dated December 1, 1910. In the Superior Court the cases were tried together before Ratigan, J., who at the close of the evidence, which is described in the opinion, in each case ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
The first action is brought against the defendant to recover compensation for alleged electrical shocks received by the plaintiff on the allegation that they were caused by the defective condition of the defendant’s telephone apparatus. The second action is by the husband of the plaintiff in the first action for expenses incurred by bim in connection with his wife’s injuries the subject of the first action. The second action depends upon the same facts and rules of law as the first. .
We take up the consideration of the first. There were two counts in the first action, one based on an alleged…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lindenbaum v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Cassady v. Old Colony Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Steverman v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Cook v. NewhallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Beattie v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Draper v. CottingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Duncan v. Fort Dodge Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Fleege v. CimplSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Brown v. DaleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Michael Kukuruza v. General Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.