Zerngis v. H. P. Hood & Sons
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Miller v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Mass. 1973)
- McIntyre v. United States (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2006)
- United States v. Gaetano Frizzi (1st Cir. 1974)
- Orasz v. Colonial Tavern, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1971)
- Hobart v. Cavanaugh (Mass. 1967)
- El-Em Seafood Transport Co. v. Gahagan (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961)
- Suárez de Arroyo v. Saavedra Soler (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1942)
- Suárez Viuda de Arroyo v. Saavedra Soler (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1942)
- Nichols v. I. J. Fox, Inc. (Boston Municipal Court 1941)
- Suárez v. Soler (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1938)
- Suárez Viuda de Arroyo v. Saavedra Soler (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1938)
- Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp. (Mass. 1937)
- Paull v. Radlo (Mass. 1936)
- Ciarmataro v. Adams (Mass. 1931)
- Champion v. Shaw (Mass. 1926)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff, a child fourteen years of age, was injured on July 10, 1923, by a piece of ice thrown by one Gillespie, an employee of the defendant. A car, loaded with ice or ice and milk, belonging to the defendant, was standing near its place of business about fifty feet from Massachusetts Avenue, in Cambridge. It was the practice of the defendant to have a carload of ice at this place on summer nights and every night children were near the car picking up ice. On the night in question about thirty-six children were there and "... this crowd of children . . . interfering with the employee of the Hood Company” was right beside the car. Gillespie, who was admitted to be in the general employ of the defendant, jumped or stepped out of the car, reached down, picked up a piece of ice about one half as large as a brick, and threw it, hitting the plaintiff who was then on the tracks at a distance estimated to be one hundred feet or more away. There was no evidence that the plaintiff was one of the children picking up ice near the car. From the admission that Gillespie was in the general employ of the defendant, together with evidence that he was in the car of the defendant containing its property, that a large number of children was close to the car and picking up the defendant’s ice, and that the crowd of children was
In accordance with the terms of the report, judgment is to be entered on the verdict.
So ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.