JULIUS WELCH, APPELLANT,
v.
DEARBORN MACHINERY MOVERS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, APPELLEE

6th Cir. | 1960-04-06
No. 13826
276 F.2d 192 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the admission of evidence regarding workers' compensation benefits and a redemption agreement was not erroneous.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant, injured at a construction site, sued for negligence. The appeal concerns the admission of evidence that appellant accepted workers' compens…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon verdict of the jury in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the Appellant at the Plymouth Engine Plant of the Chrysler Corporation in Detroit, Michigan, where appellant was employed by the F. H. Martin Construction Company in the installation of a sewer line. Appellant’s injuries allegedly resulted from negligence of the Appellee in the handling of a heavy steel plate, referred to as a “skid plate”, which was permitted to fall upon the appellant’s left leg.

Question is made on this appeal with respect to the admission of evidence during the trial of the acceptance of Workmen’s Compensation benefits by the appellant and a redemption agreement between him and the compensation carrier of his employer. Upon the facts and circumstances here presented, evidence relating to Workmen’s Compensation Insurance and the redemption agreement aforesaid was not erroneously received. There was no objection on the part of appellant. In fact, there was a stipulation in open Court under which this evidence was admitted. The District Judge took adequate precautions to instruct the jury concerning the matter. It results there was no prejudicial error in this regard. Spelker v. Knobloch, 1958, 354 Mich. 403, 93 N.W. 2d 276, 278; Sprinkle v. Davis, 4 Cir., 1940, 111 F. 2d 925, 128 A.L.R. 1101.

The Court finds no merit in other contentions of the appellant. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw