Legal Opinion

Hebert v. Enos

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 15, 2004No. 02-P-1379PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKafker, J.

The plaintiff William Hebert (Hebert) brought an action to recover for personal injuries he suffered as a result of receiving a severe electric shock while lawfully on the defendant Carl Enos’s property to water the defendant’s flowers. Hebert claimed that the defendant’s faulty repairs of a second-floor toilet caused the toilet to overflow. The flooding water then reacted with the home’s electrical system, creating an electrical current that shocked and injured Hebert when he touched the outside water faucet. Hebert asserted a claim for negligence in *818his complaint, and his wife sought…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  3. Cimino v. Milford Keg, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. Kent v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  5. Falk v. FinkelmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Heng Or v. EdwardsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  2. Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Empire Comfort Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008
  3. Adams v. Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
  4. Wilson v. James L. Cooney Insurance AgencyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
  5. R.L. Currie Corp. v. E. Coast Sand & Gravel, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2018

9 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