Frazee v. Stott
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Carpenter, J. Case by Clarence A. Frazee against David Stott for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Defendant owns a flouring mill in the city of Detroit, and is the general manager of his business. Upon the floor of the mill are 28 roller machines, called “roller mills,” of which one is used for grinding feed and the others for grinding flour.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Carpenter, J. Case by Clarence A. Frazee against David Stott for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Defendant owns a flouring mill in the city of Detroit, and is the general manager of his business. Upon the floor of the mill are 28 roller machines, called “roller mills,” of which one is used for grinding feed and the others for grinding flour. The feed mill is composed of two sets of rollers, one above the other, the upper set of rollers being nearer the front of the mill than the other, which is situated…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, C. J.
(after stating the facts). It appears conceded that plaintiff and Enrich and Shafer were ordinarily fellow-servants, but it is argued that they were not *627fellow-servants in taking out and putting in the rollers, and that defendant’s duty continued and rested upon him to continually inspect the machine, and that this duty was then the same as though a new machine were being put in place. The following facts are not contested:
1. That the machine was one in common use, was properly constructed, and properly set up.
3. That Enrich and Shafer were competent for the work. (One count in the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Quincy Mining Co. v. KittsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Petaja v. Aurora Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Schroeder v. Flint & Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wickham v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Miller v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Lahti v. Tamarack Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Jurkiewicz v. American Car & Foundry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907