Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lahti v. Tamarack Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1915No. Docket No. 48Published

Error to Houghton; Cooper, J., presiding. Case by John Lahti against the Tamarack Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1DissentBird, J.

I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice Stone, that this case should be reversed. The place in which the plaintiff was injured was not one which was in the process, of making. It was a permanent place, provided with a railway and cars, and was also used as a passageway for the employees going to and from their work. When the defendant put the passageway to this joint use, it was bound to keep it reasonably safe for the passage of the employees, and to keep it reasonably safe for them it was necessary to light it. Of the many ways in which this might have been…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kaukola v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Murphy v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API