Legal Opinion

Hendrickson v. Continental Fibre Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided June 13, 1927No. Summons Case, No. 149PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pennewill, C. J.,

charging the Jury:

This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by George A. Hendrickson, while employed as a tube maker by the defendant company, a manufacturer of fibre in this county. The declaration alleges that the plaintiff contracted and suffered certain diseases and afflictions by reason of his person coming in contact with chemicals with which he was caused to work by the defendant in the course of his employment.

• It is not denied that the eyesight of George A. Hendrickson has been…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jordan v. Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1909
  2. Derrickson v. Commissioners of HarringtonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1927
  3. Kemp ex rel. Kemp v. McNeill Cooperage Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1918
  4. Wilczynski v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jardel Co., Inc. v. HughesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1987
  2. Stein v. Diamond State Telephone Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1929
  3. Dickinson v. Eastern Railroad BuildersSuperior Court of Delaware · 1977
  4. Webb v. Pindergrass' Adm'x.Superior Court of Delaware · 1846

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

Powered by the Exa API