Legal Opinion

Conradsen v. Osceola Consolidated Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1914No. Docket No. 18Published

Error to Houghton; O’Brien, J. Case by Helmer Conradsen against the Osceola Consolidated Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

While it is alleged in the declaration that it was defendant’s duty, among others, to have adopted, promulgated, and vigilantly enforced a rule for notifying miners of the condition in which the place in which they were required to work was left by miners working in the same place, on another shift, the case as made and as it was submitted to the jury, and the legal propositions presented in this court, may be gathered from that portion of the charge of the court which is here set out:

“The plaintiff has brought this suit to recover damages for personal injuries which he received while in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. ShanksSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
  2. Shannon v. Consolidated Tiger & Poorman Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1901
  3. McMillan v. North Star Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Panela v. Castile Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Blaisdell v. Davis Paper Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910

1 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