261 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1958), 13467, Sheptur v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co.
|Citation:||261 F.2d 221|
|Party Name:||Bernice SHEPTUR, Appellant, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING Co., an Ohio corporation, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||November 28, 1958|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Under Michigan law, happening of an accident alone is not evidence of negligence.
George Downing, of Marcus, Kelman, Loria, McCroskey & Finucan, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
G. Cameron Buchanan, Detroit, Mich., Richard A. Harvey of Alexander, Cholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, Detroit, Mich., William L. Blum and Thomas S. Calder, of Dinsmore, Shohl, Dinsmore & Todd, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellee.
Before ALLEN, Chief Judge, and SIMONS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the District Court committed reversible error in directing a verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiff's 1 testimony.
Plaintiff filed an action claiming that she had suffered an injury from the use of Tide, a well-known detergent. Plaintiff was employed as dishwasher at Cloverdale Farms, a restaurant in Garden City, Michigan. While plaintiff's testimony as to dates is somewhat vague, her employment began around April 26, 1952. The work required plaintiff to wash dishes by hand in heated water for eight hours a day six days a week. The water was described as being water that she could put her hands in. Previously plaintiff had similar employment at a restaurant which used a dishwashing machine and therefore did not require frequent or continuous immersion of the hands.
It is admitted that during the first part of the employment plaintiff's employer furnished Tide for the dishwashing. On September 8, 1952, prior to plaintiff's leaving her employment, her employer purchased a case of Surf, another detergent, for use at Cloverdale. About September 24, 1952, plaintiff left her employment due to a severe skin irritation or eczema. She was treated for several weeks by two doctors and her condition improved so that she returned to Cloverdale just before election day. At plaintiff's request her employer supplied a different soap for several days and then reverted to Tide. Plaintiff used Tide 'Just one day' and 'quit right there', having worked in this second period one week.
After leaving the restaurant September 24, 1952, plaintiff was treated by three doctors, only...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP