Legal Opinion

Suggs v. Ternstedt Manufacturing Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1925No. Docket No. 104PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

Plaintiff received an injury by a particle of steel becoming imbedded in his right eye. That the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment is conceded. As a result of the injury a traumatic cataract formed which was removed by an operation, the expense of which was borne by defendant. Since the operation plaintiff has one-sixtieth normal vision without the use of a glass, but with a strong glass his vision with that eye is above normal, but his two eyes do not co-ordinate. If he uses the uninjured eye, he can not wear the strong glass on the other; if he uses the injured eye…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stefan v. Red Star Mill & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1920
  2. Claim of Frings v. Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
  3. Juergens Bros. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
  4. O'Brien's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  5. Purcell v. International Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1918

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Miller v. Sullivan Milk Products, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Rench v. Kalamazoo Stove & Furnace Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Mitchell v. Metal Assemblies, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Lindhout v. Brochu & HassMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Powers v. Motor Wheel Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931

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