Legal Opinion

Scendar v. Winona Copper Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1912No. Docket No. 86PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Error to Houghton; Streeter, J. Case by Valentine Scendar against the Winona Copper Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBird, J.

While plaintiff was working as a trammer on the ninth level of No. 3 shaft in the Winona mine, his partner noticed what appeared to be loose rock in the overhanging wall and called the attention of the captain and shift boss to it. They examined it, with several of the miners, and, after doing so, the captain told plaintiff and his partner that it was solid; that they need not be afraid of it, to go on with their work of filling the car. At this particular point the drift had been cut out but had not yet been timbered. In less than three hours after the captain assured them that it was solid,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. VanDusen v. LetellierMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Morton v. Detroit, Bay City & Alpena RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Petaja v. Aurora Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. People v. KnopfMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Paul v. University Motor Sales Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Hallock v. Income Guaranty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Eberts v. Mt. Clemens Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Swarthout v. BeardMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  5. Willis v. Oscar Daniels Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918

13 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