Legal Opinion
Carroll v. Cambridge Electric Light Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided August 5, 1942PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDolan, J.
These are two actions of tort in which the plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the respective defendants. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence each of the defendants filed a motion for a directed verdict in its favor and in each case the motion was allowed, subject to the plaintiff’s exceptions.
*91The evidence would have warranted the jury in finding the following facts: On May 19, 1938, the plaintiff was employed by the Works Progress Administration (hereinafter referred to as the W. P. A.) in assisting in removing…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Baggs v. HirschfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- McKenna v. AndreassiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Leahy v. Standard Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Cheney v. BarkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Florence Wright and Roy Wright v. Carter Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Stewart v. Worcester Gas Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
- Boston Edison Co. v. Town of SudburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969
- Yellow Cab Co. of D. C. v. GriffithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1944
- Winer v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.