Legal Opinion

Clement v. Crosby & Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1909No. Docket No. 107PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Case by Alice D. Clement against Crosby & Company for personal injuries. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error. Plaintiff was putting stove polish or enamel upon her gas range with a brush, when, in some way, it ignited, and she was severely burned. She brought her action for damages against both the manufacturer of the compound and the merchant who sold it to her.

Read the full summary

Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Case by Alice D. Clement against Crosby & Company for personal injuries. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error. Plaintiff was putting stove polish or enamel upon her gas range with a brush, when, in some way, it ignited, and she was severely burned. She brought her action for damages against both the manufacturer of the compound and the merchant who sold it to her. An order overruling the demurrer of the manufacturer to the declaration was affirmed. Clement v. Crosby & Co., 148 Mich. 293 (111 N. W. 745, 10 L. R. A. [N. S.] 588). An order…

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

{after stating the facts). There was testimony which warranted the jury in finding that it was negligent for defendant to place upon the market for sale, for common domestic use, the particular compound or composition, without notifying the public, by a proper label or otherwise, of its dangerous character. The applicable rule of law is sufficiently stated in the opinion in Clement v. Crosby & Co., 148 Mich. 293, 296, 297 (111 N. W. 745, 10 L. R. A. [N. S.] 588).

The single meritorious question remaining, affecting the right to a recovery by plaintiff, is whether, having testified, without…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Clement v. Crosby & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Schindler v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. McCaslin v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Wines v. Crosby & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Genack v. GormanMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Moss v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API