Home/Massachusetts Appeals Court/Hayes v. Hobart Corp.

Hayes v. Hobart Corp.

387 N.E.2d 176, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 889
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedMarch 23, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 387 N.E.2d 176 (Hayes v. Hobart Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hayes v. Hobart Corp., 387 N.E.2d 176, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 889 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

It was open to the jury to find on their own examination of the food chopper and photographs thereof that the defendant had been negligent in designing a machine which readily permitted the user’s fingers to reach the cutting blades. Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620, 625 (1978). The jury could also have found that the machine was negligently designed on the basis of the testimony of the plaintiffs expert that the machine was dangerous and could have been designed to perform the same function in a safer fashion. Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874, 881, 884 (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

King v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
608 F. App'x 18 (First Circuit, 2015)
Maldonado v. Thomson National Press Co.
449 N.E.2d 1229 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
Kettinger v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
432 N.E.2d 736 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Pensivy v. American Metal Works, Inc.
398 N.E.2d 727 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 N.E.2d 176, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-hobart-corp-massappct-1979.