Wood v. Canadian Imperial Dry Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The first action is brought by a minor, hereinafter called the plaintiff, for personal injuries. The second action is brought by his father for consequential damages. The defendant is a manufacturer of ginger ale, a carbonated beverage, and was not insured under the workmen’s compensation act. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 66. Sylvain v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 280 Mass. 503, 505. Subject to the exceptions of the defendant, the judge denied its motions for directed verdicts in its favor. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant in each case.
Bottles were filled by an automatic filling…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Leary v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Thompson v. United Laboratories Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Bernabeo v. KaulbackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Cronan v. ArmitageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Engel v. Boston Ice Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Reidy v. Crompton & Knowles Loom WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Taylor v. Newcomb Baking Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Rosenston v. Bickford Shoes, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960