Legal Opinion

Ames v. Dipietro-Kay Corp.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 8, 1992PublishedCited by 19 opinions

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

  1. Wing v. MorseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1973
  2. C.N. Brown Co. v. GillenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1990
  3. Pombriant v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of MaineSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1989
  4. Binette v. DeaneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  5. 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

  1. Veilleux v. National Broadcasting Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
  2. Williams v. Inverness Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995
  3. Townsend v. Chute Chemical Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1997
  4. Danforth v. RuotoloSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  5. Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2000

14 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