Collins v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding reasonable inference that a clothes dryer was in same condition at time of sale as it was at time of accident when jury heard no evidence that electrical system had been repaired after purchase
• two experts testified that probable cause of fire was directly related to electrical system within dryer
• no evidence that the dryer’s electrical system where the fire originated had ever been touched or worked on or after its sale to plaintiffs
• supplier of electric clothesdryer which caught fire two-and-a-half years after purchase liable even though dryer moved and installed elsewhere
• ditto, with respect to manufacturers of electric clothesdryer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Enrich v. Windmere Corp.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1993-08-06· cited 75×
• Santos v. Sunrise Medical, Inc.
  First Circuit· 2003-12-12· cited 31×
• Mitchell v. Stop & Shop Companies
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1996-10-28· cited 6×
• Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2012-10-22· cited 3×
• Bruno v. Columbia Manufacturing Co.
  Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.· 1996-09-06

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Colter v. Barber-Greene Co.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1988-07-20· cited 89×
• Fernandes v. UNION BOOKBINDING CO. IONICS, INC.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1987-05-14· cited 43×
• Hunt v. PERKINS MACHINERY CO. INC.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1967-05-05· cited 34×
• Walsh v. Atamian Motors, Inc.
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1980-07-07· cited 23×