Legal Opinion

Wabeke v. Bull

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1939No. Docket No. 41, Calendar No. 39,951PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Negligence must be affirmatively proved (Sward v. Megan,284 Mich. 421; Pulford v. Mouw, 279 Mich. 376; Fleegar v. ConsumersPower Co., 262 Mich. 537), and the burden of such proof rests upon the party alleging it. Shadduck v. Railway Co., 179 Mich. 433.

In his opinion, Justice BUSHNELL considers a new trial necessary because of an alleged dispute of fact as to whether or not the electric cord was attached to the electric heating pad under the baby when the latter was examined by the defendant, which cord, if attached, would give rise to the question of whether or not defendant was guilty of a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wright v. ConwayWyoming Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Butrick v. SnyderMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Fleegar v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Rodgers v. CanfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Fish v. Grand Trunk Western RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API