Legal Opinion

Farrell v. Haze

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1909No. Docket No. 27PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Error to Ingham; Miner, J., presiding. Case by Thomas Farrell against Harry A. Haze for malpractice. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

Plaintiff, on April 2, 1907, at about 10 o’clock a. m., sustained an injury to his right foot, ankle, and leg. It was what is known as a “Potts fracture.” He fell from a wagon to and upon the pavement. There is some testimony tending to prove that the wagon seat fell upon and across the foot or ankle. The foot was turned outward to a position at right angles to the leg, and perhaps it formed with the leg a more acute angle. The skin was not broken. In a fracture so described the fibula is broken. In this case the tibia was also broken. The extent to which the surrounding tissues were injured,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Halsey v. . SinsebaughNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  2. Tubbs v. Dwelling-House InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Pelky v. PalmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Fisher v. KyleMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Weaver v. BromleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Lince v. MonsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Slimak v. FosterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  3. Miller v. TolesMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Pedigo v. RoseberrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
  5. Stacy v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934

22 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