Cusick v. Tamarack Mining Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Houghton; Cooper, J., presiding. Case by Daniel Cusiek against the Tamarack Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant, upon a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error. One Martin acted in the capacity of surface boss and carpenter boss at defendant’s shafts Nos. 8 and 4. Plaintiff was the foreman of a gang working upon the surface at those shafts, under Martin.
Read the full summary
Error to Houghton; Cooper, J., presiding. Case by Daniel Cusiek against the Tamarack Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant, upon a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error. One Martin acted in the capacity of surface boss and carpenter boss at defendant’s shafts Nos. 8 and 4. Plaintiff was the foreman of a gang working upon the surface at those shafts, under Martin. It was desired to take down the shaft house at No. 4. This house stood about 200 feet distant from the engine house. From a drum in the engine house to a pulley upon the top of the shaft house ran a steel…
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). The sole question argued by plaintiff in his brief is that defendant was negligent in selecting an insufficient rope. The record contains no evidence that the rope *96selected was in fact insufficient for its intended use, except the fact that it broke under the circumstances indicated in the statement of facts. On the contrary, it is in evidence that the rope was new, or nearly new, and that it “looked good.” That the rope parted at the point where the “swifter” was applied might reasonably give rise to the inference that it broke because of improper use and not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Page v. Battle Creek Pure Food Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Lepan v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Erickson v. Victoria Copper Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Coleman v. Turner Cartage Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Argersinger v. Commonwealth Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1911