Joao Demedeiros v. Koehring Co. v. Parker Brothers Co., Third-Party Joao Demedeiros v. Koehring Co. v. Parker Brothers Co., Third-Party

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a jury question exists in a warranty action if plaintiff offers evidence that certain safety devices would reduce the risk of injury from employees’ “foreseeable lapses”
• analyzing the evidentiary implications of certain collateral source payments under Fed. R. Evid. 403 in a diversity case
• affirming admission of weekly disability benefits with “a curative instruction” that “such evidence would be relevant to [the plaintiff’s] motivation in declining employment and would be admitted for that limited purpose”
• affirming admission of evidence regarding collateral source income with a limiting instruction that the evidence “bears on [the plaintiff’s] motivation in declining the job and its admissibility is limited to that extent”
• “[i]n diversity negligence cases, this circuit has refused to extend the holding in Eichel beyond its federal statutory context”
• “the Massachusetts statute provides, in substance, that an injured employee who recovers in tort from a third party must repay workmen’s compensation benefits out of his personal injury award.” (emphasis supplied)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).