Velleca v. Uniroyal Tire 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 the defendant was not liable for plaintiffs injuries under Chapter 93A because it was the plaintiffs misuse of defendant’s product that was “the sole cause” of plaintiff’s injuries
• findings made on claim brought pursuant to G. L. c. 93A, although inconsistent with jury’s findings on common law counts, were not clearly erroneous and were, therefore, controlling on the c. 93A claim
• unreasonable use of tire and rim by inflating sixteen-inch tire on sixteen and one-half inch rim
• judge permissibly found no c. 93A liability despite jury’s finding for plaintiff on breach of warranty claim where judge’s finding of no causation contradicted jury’s causation finding reflected in answers to special verdict questions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).