Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co.

4 R.I. Dec. 163

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 6, 1928

DocketNo. 66895

StatusPublished

This text of 4 R.I. Dec. 163 (Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co., 4 R.I. Dec. 163 (R.I. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

WALSH, J.

Heard on defendant’s motion for new trial after verdict for plaintiff for $425.

This is an action of negligence resulting from eating ice cream alleged to have been manufactured by defendants in which broken glass was imbedded. The glass was removed from the stomach of plaintiff by his physician within an hour after he had eaten the ice cream. The defenses set up were: (1) the ice cream in question was not manufactured by defendants, and (2) the glass became imbedded in the ice cream through the negligence of a third person, to wit, the counterman in the restaurant where the ice cream was served to plaintiff.

The jury found against defendants on both issues and there was sufficient evidence to warrant such a finding. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of damages awarded. We understand said motion of the plaintiff is withdrawn.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

WALSH, J.

Heard on defendant’s motion for new trial after verdict for plaintiff for $425.

This is an action of negligence resulting from eating ice cream alleged to have been manufactured by defendants in which broken glass was imbedded. The glass was removed from the stomach of plaintiff by his physician within an hour after he had eaten the ice cream. The defenses set up were: (1) the ice cream in question was not manufactured by defendants, and (2) the glass became imbedded in the ice cream through the negligence of a third person, to wit, the counterman in the restaurant where the ice cream was served to plaintiff.

The jury found against defendants on both issues and there was sufficient evidence to warrant such a finding. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of damages awarded. We understand said motion of the plaintiff is withdrawn.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 R.I. Dec. 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minutilla-v-providence-ice-cream-co-risuperct-1928.