Legal Opinion

Danula v. Quincy Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1911No. Docket No. 83PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Houghton; Streeter, J. Case by Henry Danula against the Quincy Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The plaintiff, a timberman, recovered a judgment for damages for injuries to his right arm caused by the falling of rock while cutting a hitch in which a timber called a “stull” was to be placed. The accident happened in a stope which led out of the thirty-ninth level at the foot of shaft No. 7 in the mine of defendant. The level had been opened some distance past the stope and had in it two rails upon which the cars ran which were used for carrying out the ore and waste. The plat will aid in understanding the situation. The dotted lines represent where the stull was to be placed. The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Quincy Mining Co. v. KittsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. VanDusen v. LetellierMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Johnson v. SpearMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Petaja v. Aurora Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. EricksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Minkkinen v. Quincy Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Vrelenich v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Hazzard v. Consolidated Coal Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Lesh v. Tamarack Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API