Legal Opinion

Porth v. Cadillac Motor Car Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1920No. Docket No. 7PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Wayne; Hart (Ray), J., presiding. Case by William Porth against the Cadillac Motor Car Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

This case is before us for a second time. See Porth v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 198 Mich. 501. The facts, which are not in legal effect materially different upon this record than upon the former one, are fully stated in the former opinion and need not be here repeated. It should be stated, however,’ preliminary to a consideration of the questions raised, that the accident occurred on September 18,1911, prior to the enactment of the workmen’s compensation act (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 5423 et seq.), and that the common-law defenses are available to the defendant. Upon the second trial plaintiff had…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pierce v. UnderwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Porth v. Cadillac Motor Car Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Culver v. South Haven & Eastern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Curtiss v. CurtissMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Quirk v. Rapid RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Leland v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Robinson v. Gordon Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Strech v. Blissfield Community Schools DistrictMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Snider v. DunnMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  5. Daleiden v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1926

5 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