Legal Opinion

Ham v. Chrysler Corporation

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided May 23, 1967PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HERRMANN, Justice:

Upon this appeal, we are called upon to define further the term “total disability” as; used in the Delaware Workmen’s Compensation Law. Compare Hartnett v. Coleman, Del., 226 A.2d 910 (1967).

I

The claimant, Charles W. Ham, was an ordinary unskilled laborer and had been such all his adult life. He reached the eighth grade in school; he had no special occupational training or skills. Prior to his employment by the Chrysler Corporation, he worked at odd jobs including trucking, farming and mill work. For many years prior to the accident here involved, Ham worked for Chrysler as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Unora v. Glen Alden Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Lee v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. M. A. Hartnett, Inc. v. ColemanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1967
  4. Big Horn County v. IlesWyoming Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Lunsford v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1949

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  2. Guyton v. Irving Jensen Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1985
  3. Roos Foods v. GuardadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  4. Torres v. Allen Family FoodsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
  5. Chrysler Corporation v. DuffSupreme Court of Delaware · 1973

48 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