Legal Opinion

Fox v. Peninsular White Lead & Color Works

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1891PublishedCited by 43 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts ar.e stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The defendant is engaged in the manufacture of paints, dry colors, Paris green, and other poisons at Detroit. About June 12, 1888, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant corporation, and worked five days. He was first put to work cutting chromo yellow, a few hours. After that he was directed to take wet Paris green out of filters with a trowel, and put it in shallow tin pans on a board. After the first day he worked at stirring up the ingredients in vats, cleaning out vats, and in carrying dry Paris green to the dry-room. The boiling mass in the vats was heated to a high degree, and his…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marshall v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  2. Babcock Bros. Lumber Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Maggelet's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  4. Zajkowski v. American Steel & Wire Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
  5. Edling v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914

38 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