Legal Opinion
Prosky v. National Acme Company
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 12, 1975No. Civ. A. 4-72728PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FEIKENS, District Judge.
Joseph Prosky, plaintiff, brought this diversity action for personal injuries he allegedly suffered while operating a Gridley screw machine manufactured by National Acme Company, defendant and third-party plaintiff.
Plaintiff states in his complaint and answers to interrogatories that when the machine became stuck it had to be hand cranked into reverse because the automatic reverse (a safety feature) had been removed by plaintiff’s employer. While plaintiff was cranking the machine it allegedly went into “high gear” with such force as to fracture…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Sidney Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Husted v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Dale v. WhitemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
- Moore v. PalmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Burke v. Sky Climber, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Arcell v. Ashland Chemical Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
- George R. Knippen v. Ford Motor Company George R. Knippen v. Ford Motor Company, and Winifrede B. DeweeseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
- Hill v. Sullivan Equipment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978
- Minster MacHine Co. v. Diamond Stamping Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Langley v. Harris Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1982
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.