Legal Opinion

Zap v. Newport Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1915No. Docket No. 45PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Gogebic; Cooper, J. Case by Mike Zap against the Newport Mining Company for personal'injuries. Judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that while he was employed by defendant as a trammer, in. March, 1912, a quantity of earth and ore fell upon him, some of it entering into and irritating his eyes. As a result they became infected; the vision of one of them is greatly impaired; and a chronic inflammation of the eyelids (trachoma) exists. He sued for damages for his alleged injuries, and when, upon the trial of his case, the plaintiff had rested, the court, *438upon the motion of defendant’s counsel, directed a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment' was rendered. In directing the verdict, the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. EricksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Scendar v. Winona Copper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Koskell v. Newport Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kangas v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Vrelenich v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API