Legal Opinion

Cell v. Yale & Towne Manfg. Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1937No. Docket No. 39, Calendar No. 39,523PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.

This is an action at law by an employee to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the failure of the employer to provide a reasonably safe place in which to work. Plaintiff claims that, by failure of defendant to provide appliances to carry off fumes, gas and dust, he suffered burns of his face, eyes, arm, body and lungs, and became disabled. Defendant operates under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation law (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8407 et seq.), and moved to dismiss plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the law action, asserted by plaintiff, could not be maintained against…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Seattle Can Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Curley v. Beryllium CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Triff v. National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Evinger v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  4. Morris v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Krause v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1951

10 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