Legal Opinion

Barlow v. Krieghoff Company

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1944No. Docket No. 13, Calendar No. 42,757PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBushnehl, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment non obstante veredicto, after a jury had returned a verdict in the sum of $2,500 in favor of plaintiff Matthew Barlow, a minor, who received sevére burns by hot tar in September of 1940, when he was 8 years • old.

Defendant Frank Wurm is the owner of property in the city of Detroit, located at the corner of' Sheridan, Gratiot and Warren avenues. The widening of Gratiot avenue required considerable alterations in Wurm’s building, which is used for recreational and bowling alley purposes. This reconstruction required tbe use of tar, felt and pitch, et cetera, on…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Water Co. v. WareSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Utley v. Taylor & Gaskin, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Inglis v. Millersburg Driving Ass'n.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Larabell v. SchuknechtMichigan Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Habina v. Twin City General Electric Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re Certified Question From 14th Dist. Court of Appeals of TexasMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Vannoy v. City of WarrenMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Moody v. Pulte Homes, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Mulcahy v. Argo Steel Construction Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1966
  5. DeShambo v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 2004

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API