Legal Opinion

Roseberry v. Wachter

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided November 18, 1925No. 142PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rice, J.,

in charging the jury, stated that the plaintiff’s action was based on negligence. He also defined negligence and, in substance, stated that they must determine whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by negligence on the part of the defendant or of his employees. He further charged the jury as follows:

It is well settled that innkeepers, proprietors of restaurants, lunch rooms, and other persons who undertake to furnish the public with food are bound to use due care to see that such food is fit for human consumption, and can be partaken of without causing sickness, injury or…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  2. Sheffer v. WilloughbyIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Tonsman v. GreenglassMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  4. Kenney v. Wong LenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
  5. Crocker v. Baltimore Dairy Lunch Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Stanfield ex rel. Stanfield v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1936
  3. Handy v. Uniroyal, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1971
  4. Childs Dining Hall Co. v. SwinglerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
  5. Dickens v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API