Legal Opinion

Juntunen v. Quincy Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1915No. Docket No. 54PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Houghton; O’Brien, J. Case by Emil Juntunen against the Quincy Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, C. J.

The plaintiff, a native of Finland, was injured in defendant’s mines through the fall of a piece of rock. The injury sustained was a broken *343leg. Plaintiff had resided in this country about 11 years and had worked for the defendant in various capacities practically all the time. For more than a year and a half prior to his injury he had worked in a repair crew in charge of one Savinini. The record discloses that shaft No. 2 had for a very considerable distance been crushed in and rendered useless. It became the duty of the repair crew, of which plaintiff was a member, to take out the old…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Petaja v. Aurora Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. People v. KnopfMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Andrews v. Tamarack Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kangas v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Vrelenich v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Aho v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Drajicevic v. Champion Copper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API