Legal Opinion

Ranta v. Newport Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1914No. Docket No. 65PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Gogebic; Cooper, J. Case by Victor Ranta against the Newport Mining Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtKuhn, J.

The defendant operates an iron mine at Ironwood, Mich., with the customary shafts, drifts, levels, sublevels, chutes and raises. From one of the main drifts, or levels, known as the fifteenth level, a perpendicular shaft, or raise, had been constructed, reaching upward to a drift 47 feet above, which was known as the forty-seventh sublevel. Mining operations were going on in this sublevel, and the raise in question had been constructed as a chute through which ore was dropped to the level below. It was divided by a partition into two perpendicular compartments, and, when the ore clogged in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Styles v. Village of DecaturMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Haines v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Kuney v. DutcherMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Orso v. Great Lakes Engineering WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Schweyer v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rucker v. Wyandotte Savings BankMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967
  2. Baucino v. FitzpatrickMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. McKinch v. DixonMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  4. McKinch v. DixonMichigan Supreme Court · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API