Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 5/20/1975

DoCanto v. Ametek, Inc.

Citations

328 N.E.2d 873
367 Mass. 776

How courts have described this case

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

holding that jury could use lay knowledge to determine that the momentum of ironing machine rollers that sucked plaintiffs hand into machine after power had been shut off was design defect
explaining that the jury was permitted to conclude, without expert testimony, that “[the defendant] never advised [the employer of the injured plaintiff] of this particular danger”
“In the judge’s discretion, evidence, otherwise admissible, does not lose that status simply because of a general concession made by the party against whom that evidence is offered”
jury could determine on their lay knowledge whether the failure to immediately stop was a design defect in a commercial ironing machine
jury could determine based on its lay knowledge whether failure to immediately stop was design defect in commercial ironing machine
improper design prevented safety mechanism from operating as intended

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tauro, Beardon, Braucher, Kaplan, Wilkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

100 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.