Legal Opinion

Eustace Weekes v. Michigan Chrome & Chemical Company, a Michigan Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided November 10, 1965No. 15796_1PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Eustace Weekes, contracted a serious skin condition as a result of working with “Miccrowax C-600,” sold by defendant-appellant, Michigan Chrome & Chemical Company.1 A jury awarded him $24,000 damages in an action charging that defendant had negligently failed to provide adequate warning of the dangers involved in using this wax and to advise the proper precautions for avoiding them. Appellant charges that the District Judge erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict, in rulings on evidence and in the instructions given to the jury.

I)…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Salen v. United States Lines Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Comstock v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Martin v. Bengue, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  5. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. GreenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1947

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Alm v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 1986
  2. In Re Columbia Gas System Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  3. First National Bank Ex Rel. Huckleby v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. Kozar v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1970
  5. Dougherty v. Hooker Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976

29 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