Hoger v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.

The scope of the agreement to repair presented purely a fact issue. Reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to whether the agreement covered the faucet in all of its parts or was restricted to the replacement of washers. Counsel for defendant evidently realized this situation because, at his request, this special interrogatory was submitted to the jury: “Did defendant Henry Shanedling assume the responsibility to repair the faucet and all the parts thereof, including the porcelain handle known as plaintiff’s exhibit A ?” This was answered by the jury in the affirmative.

This…