Legal Opinion
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Pittsfield Electric Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided December 14, 1935PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The plaintiff, the insurer of The Meyer Store, Incorporated, under the workmen’s compensation act, having paid compensation for the death of an employee of the latter named Francis Bruce, brings this action by virtue of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 15, to recover for the conscious suffering and death of Bruce. The only exception is to the direction of a verdict for the defendant.
There was evidence tending to prove the following facts. The Meyer Store, Incorporated, sold, installed and repaired radio receiving sets, commonly called “radios.” One Bloomberg, who owned a house on the south side of…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- The CorsairSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Tully v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Romana v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Crowley's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Gaudette v. WebbMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Rathbun v. Western Massachusetts Electric Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Edgarton v. H. P. Welch Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Theriault v. PierceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Chelefou v. Springfield Institution for SavingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.