Clemens v. City of Sault Ste. Marie
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPotteb, J.
Suit by guardian, as plaintiff, to recover damages from defendants for her ward’s injuries. At the trial, a motion was made by defendants for directed verdict, which was reserved under the Empson act (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14531 et seq. [Stat. Ann. § 27.1461 et seq.]), the case submitted to the jury resulting in a verdict for plaintiff against both defendants in the sum of $1,800. Motion of defendants for directed verdict was denied and they appeal.
Plaintiff’s ward at the time of his injury was eight years and three months old, in the second grade in school. He was tossing in the air a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hargreaves v. DeaconMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Cooper v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Trudell v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Ecliff v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Daniels v. CleggMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bridges v. DahlCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
- Ackerman v. Advance Petroleum Transport, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1942
- Dedo v. SkinnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- Conrad v. KrauseMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Chadwick v. KempfMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.