Legal Opinion

Wood v. Canadian Imperial Dry Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 1, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Leary v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  2. Thompson v. United Laboratories Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  3. Bernabeo v. KaulbackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  4. Cronan v. ArmitageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Engel v. Boston Ice Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Reidy v. Crompton & Knowles Loom WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  2. Taylor v. Newcomb Baking Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  3. Rosenston v. Bickford Shoes, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API