Wiska v. St. Stanislaus Social Club, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[a] judge has broad discretion to determine whether an expert has the requisite qualifications and knowledge to render an opinion . . .”
• affirming directed verdict based on determination that plaintiffs’ expert was not qualified
• “It is basic that a defendant cannot be held liable unless the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act.”
• \It is basic that a defendant cannot be held liable unless the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act.\
• proof the defendant tavern served minor in violation of G. L. c. 138, § 34, insufficient to prove proximate cause of third party’s injuries absent evidence tavern keeper knew sale was to minor
• directed verdict in favor of com mercial establishment affirmed when there was no evidence that patron was served alcohol after he began exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).