Legal Opinion

Mead v. Western Slate, Inc.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 13, 2004No. 02-544PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

¶ 1. Defendants Western Slate, Inc. and Jeffrey N. Harri-

son appeal from the denial of their post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial, following a jury verdict finding them liable for injuries to their employee, plaintiff Martin Mead, Jr., under the intentional-injury exception to the workers’ compensation law. Defendants contend the court erred in ruling that the exception could be satisfied by a showing that they knew to a “substantial certainty” their conduct would result in plaintiffs injury. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  2. Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Reed Tool Co. v. CopelinTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Millison v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  5. Birklid v. Boeing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Stamp Tech, Inc. v. Lydall/Thermal Acoustical, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  2. Robles v. Hovensa, L.L.C.Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2008
  3. Chayer v. Ethan Allen, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  4. Garger v. DesrochesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  5. Ira Martel v. Connor Contracting, Inc., Jason Clark, and Stephen ConnorSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018

10 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