Legal Opinion

Chaddock v. Plummer

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1891PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Error to Berrien- (O’Hara, J.)- Case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

Plaintiff brought this suit in the Berrien circuit court to recover damages for the loss of his right *227eye, which was destroyed by a shot from an air-gun in the hands of a boy named Eoscoe Tabor. The circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant.

The facts proven are substantially as follows: During the last of July or first of August, 1890, the defendant bought an air-gun, and gave it to his son, Harry Plummer, a lad aged about nine years. Defendant also bought at the same time some shot, such as are used in air-guns. Defendant cautioned his son to be careful in using the gun. The shot…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. Buelke v. LevenstadtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Gudziewski v. StempleskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  3. Meers v. McDowellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
  4. Schultz v. MorrisonNew York Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Highsaw v. CreechCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1933

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API