Ames v. Dipietro-Kay Corp.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
RUDMAN, Justice.
Dipietro-Kay Corporation (“Dipietro-Kay”) and Volvo Penta of America (“Volvo”) appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Knox County, Kravchuk, J.) following a jury verdict finding them both liable, under theories of negligence and product liability, for the injuries sustained by Mark Ames (“Ames”). On appeal, Volvo and Dipietro-Kay contend that the Superior Court erred in denying their motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in that: (1) Ames’s own actions constituted a superseding cause of his injuries as a matter of law and (2) the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wing v. MorseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1973
- C.N. Brown Co. v. GillenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1990
- Pombriant v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of MaineSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1989
- Binette v. DeaneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
- Marois v. Paper Converting MacHine Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Veilleux v. National Broadcasting Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Williams v. Inverness Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995
- Townsend v. Chute Chemical Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1997
- Danforth v. RuotoloSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
- Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.