Legal Opinion

Kimball v. Clark

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 30, 1935PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturgis, J.

General motion for a new trial by defendant, together with a special motion based on newly discovered evidence. The action is in negligence for damages resulting from ivy poisoning. No exceptions were reserved.

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that on June 27, 1926, while employed by the defendant as a common laborer about the grounds of his cottage at York Harbor, he was' directed to mow the bushes on a small knoll and in doing' so came in contact with poison ivy and was so poisoned that he was unable to work regularly, suffered great physical discomfort, and incurred large *265expe…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wormell v. Maine Central RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
  2. Dirken v. Great Northern Paper Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1913
  3. Welch v. Bath Iron WorksSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1903
  4. Nathan M. Rodman Co. v. KostisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
  5. Charpentier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1931

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hurd v. HurdSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  2. Rodrigue v. LetendreSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1962
  3. Spence v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1944
  4. Boisvert v. CharestSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1937
  5. Hurd v. HurdSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API