Legal Opinion

Charpentier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided November 16, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFarrington, J.

Action to recover for personal injuries due to alleged negligence of defendant.

On general motion after a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $2,791.00.

Inasmuch as it was agreed that the defendant Company was a non-assenting employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it could not avail itself of possible defenses arising from the fellow servant doctrine, assumption of risk or contributory negligence and such defenses require no discussion, the only question involved being whether or not there was negligence on the part of the defendant Company.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mosley v. RainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  2. Hall v. Proctor Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Patrick's Inc. v. MosserianoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
  2. Faltinali v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1936
  3. Kimball v. ClarkSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1935
  4. Orr v. First National Stores, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971
  5. Orr v. First National Stores, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API