Maillet v. ATF-Davidson Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that employee injured by printing press had standing to sue manufacturer under G.L.c. 93A
• stating that “non-privity plaintiffs can also maintain an action in a products liability case.”
• affirming c. 93A liability where plaintiff was injured by printing press without safety device or warning
• following 1979 amendment, § 9 applicable to product liability cases involving personal injury
• interpreting Mass. Gen. L. ch. 9New Hampshire often looks to courts interpreting Massachusetts G.L. ch. 93A for guidance when interpreting RSA 358-A. See Roberts v. General Motors Corp., 138 N.H. 532, 538- 39, 643 A.2d 956, 960 (1994
• “properly within the discretion of the trial judge to exclude extrinsic evidence of collateral matters”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).