Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kaemmerling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided September 11, 1924No. 6507Published

1Concurrence

AMID ON, District Judge.

I concur in the reversal of this ease. My reasons are somewhat different from those stated by Judge SCOTT, and I state them in the hope of aiding the lower court in the trial of the ease upon the merits.

The trial court sustained the demurrer upon the ground that the complaint failed to specify any particular acts of negligence on the part of the defendant which caused the current of electricity to escape from its usual conduits and pass into the iron lever. That is the substance also of the argument of counsel for defendant.

Does the law require plaintiff to go hack of…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. San Juan Light & Transit Co. v. RequenaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. ArchibaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  5. Chenall v. Palmer Brick Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903

45 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