Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.
The principal factual issue at trial in this negligence action was whether the defendant’s product, Parnon, was the cause of the plaintiff’s blindness, more specifically, his condition of bilateral optic atrophy. While working for a commercial rose grower, the plaintiff had sprayed roses with Parnon, and he claimed that his loss of vision was caused by toxic agents in that product. The jury found for the defendant.
The sole issue on the plaintiff’s appeal 2 is whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could not consider opinions and diagnoses contained in the plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1945
- Cornfeldt v. TongenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Commonwealth v. BohannonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Bouchie v. MurrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
- Joseph E. Thomas v. Ruth A. Martin HoganCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WaiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
- Commonwealth v. McDonoughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- Commonwealth v. DubeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Commonwealth v. GoudreauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.