Legal Opinion

Breig v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1893PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. Reversed, and no new trial ordered. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action of negligence. Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant in its foundry and car shops. The declaration avers that plaintiff’s duties ■consisted in attending and operating an emery wheel, which wheel was used for the purpose of polishing and sharpening tools used in said shop and for gumming saws; that while the plaintiff was gumming a saw, using the emery wheel for that purpose, the wheel broke, and he was injured by some of the pieces flying into his face, cutting his lips, and doing other -serious injury. The negligence charged against the defendant was—

1. That the wheel…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. SmithsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Sjogren v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brands v. St. Louis Car Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  2. Hayball v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Rohrabacher v. WoodardMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Riffel v. Union Truck Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API