Legal Opinion

O'Neill v. James

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1904No. Docket No. 104PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Error to Houghton; Streeter, J. Case by Andrew R. O’Neill against Joseph James for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, C. J.

This is an action brought against the defendant to recover damages for the loss of an eye, which the plaintiff claims was caused by the negligence of the defendant. At the time of the injury the plaintiff was in the employ of his brother, in the capacity of bartender. *568The defendant was a bottler of champagne cider, and had been for 20 years prior to the injury. The liquid was charged with carbonic acid gas. Some time prior to February 28, 1902, the defendant sold a quantity of champagne cider to the plaintiff’s employer, and the cider, when delivered, was. put in the ice box. On the 28th day…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
  2. Wellington v. Downer Kerosene Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  3. Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Norton v. SewallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  5. Schubert v. J. R. Clark Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. in Re Bradley EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 2013
  2. O'Brien v. American Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  3. MacRes v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Ebers v. General Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Larrabee v. Des Moines Tent & Awning Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1920

27 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