Hardy-Burlingham Mining Co. v. Baker
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
DENISON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below Baker recovered against the Mining Company a judgment based on a personal injury. At the time of the trial he appeared to be, and, giving due effect to the verdict, it must be assumed that he in truth was in the condition which is concisely indicated by the term “nervous wreck.” He charged this result to his experience in the first half hour of the first and only day that he worked in the defendant’s coal mine. It is his theory that he then inhaled a “poisonous gas,” which defendant was negligently permitting to- exist at the place where he was put to…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Sparf v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Pleasants v. FantSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- United States Steel Corporation v. LampCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- United States v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Clifford Padgett v. Southern Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- United States v. NickleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Davlin v. Henry Ford & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.