Wilhemina Shick v. Banspach Bros.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Wilhemina Shick v. Banspach Bros.

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 58

Superior Court of Rhode Island·Decided March 7, 1918·No. W.C.A. Pet. No. 158·Published

Opinion

TANNER, P. J.

Petitioner’s husband sustained an accident, in the course of his employment, from running a splinter into his finger. The finger became infected and resulted in the loss of the man’s life. It appeared that the splinter was taken out ‘by means of a needle which was in common use for that purpose and respondent claims that the infection was not due to the accident. We are of the opinion, however, that under the authorities the infection was due to the accident, and a decree may be entered in favor of the petitioner.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TANNER, P. J.

Petitioner’s husband sustained an accident, in the course of his employment, from running a splinter into his finger. The finger became infected and resulted in the loss of the man’s life. It appeared that the splinter was taken out ‘by means of a needle which was in common use for that purpose and respondent claims that the infection was not due to the accident. We are of the opinion, however, that under the authorities the infection was due to the accident, and a decree may be entered in favor of the petitioner.

Wilhemina Shick v. Banspach Bros., 1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 58 (R.I. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 58 (Wilhemina Shick v. Banspach Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.