Legal Opinion

Amicucci v. Ford Motor Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1944No. Docket No. 25, Calendar No. 42,561PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBushnell, J.

Plaintiff Baldoino Amieneci and another employee, Harvey Flowers, worked' for defendant Ford Motor Company at the same bench, burring, filing and grinding aluminum stock. Each man used an air-driven emery grinder which resulted in the accumulation of considerable dust on the work bench and their clothing.

On the day in question, Flowers, having completed his particular job, removed the air hose from his grinder and, in the words of the department of labor and industry — “as was customary among the employees, used the hose to blow the dust off the bench and off his clothes. Some of the dust was…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Haller v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Terlecki v. StraussSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  5. Appleford v. KimmelMichigan Supreme Court · 1941

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Whetro v. AwkermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Dyer v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  3. MacK v. Reo Motors, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Murphy v. Flint Bd. of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Tegels v. Kaiser-Frazer Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1950

8 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