United States Express Co. v. Wahl
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The following is the instruction referred to in the opinion: “Then you should assess the damages which have resulted to the plaintiff from this injury, and those damages should’be such as to compensate the plaintiff for the injury he has suffered, which would include the pain and suffering which he has undergone, the humiliation resulting from the disfigurement from the loss of the eye, and…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The following is the instruction referred to in the opinion: “Then you should assess the damages which have resulted to the plaintiff from this injury, and those damages should’be such as to compensate the plaintiff for the injury he has suffered, which would include the pain and suffering which he has undergone, the humiliation resulting from the disfigurement from the loss of the eye, and effects of that disfigmement in the less ability, if you find such, to earn his living in the future, and, in fact,…
1Opinion of the Court
COCIIRAN, District Judge.
This action was brought to recover damages for a personal injury. The injury consisted in the loss of the sight of the plaintiff’s right eye. It resulted in recovery of judgment for $4,000. The defendant brings the case here as plaintiff in error.
It operated a repair shop in the city of Deñance, Ohio, and it was whilst employed therein as common laborer and mechanic that the plaintiff below received the injury complained of. At the time thereof he was engaged in operating what is called in the evidence a “punch press.” It was a machine used for punching holes in sheet…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McDermott v. SevereSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Traver v. Spokane Street Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1901
- Chattanooga Rapid Transit Co. v. WaltonTennessee Supreme Court · 1900
- Southern Pac. Co. v. HetzerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Baltimore & O. R. v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Parrent v. Mobile Ohio Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Roberts v. Sierra Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1910
- Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. BelewCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. WimmerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Weaver v. Mobile Ohio Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.