Stamo v. Wiener

101 N.E.2d 379, 328 Mass. 651
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 31, 1951·Published

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action at law to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while being driven home from his place of employment by the defendant, his employer. The transportation was one of the terms of his employment. The defendant was insured under the workmen’s compensation act (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 152), and the plaintiff did not reserve under § 24, as amended, of the act any rights at common law. Caira v. Caira, 296 Mass. 448, 449. DeStefano v. Alpha Lunch Co. of Boston, 308 Mass. 38, 40. Murphy v. Miet-tinen, 317 Mass. 633. Adiletto v. Brockton Cut Sole Corp. 322 Mass. 110, 113. Pell v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. 325 Mass. 239, 241.

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

Stamo v. Wiener, 101 N.E.2d 379, 328 Mass. 651 (Mass. 1951).

101 N.E.2d 379 (Stamo v. Wiener) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pell v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co.
90 N.E.2d 555 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Caira v. Caira
6 N.E.2d 431 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
DeStefano v. Alpha Lunch Co.
30 N.E.2d 827 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Murphy v. Miettinen
59 N.E.2d 252 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Adiletto v. Brockton Cut Sole Corp.
75 N.E.2d 926 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)