McDonald v. Hazletine
EDWARD McDonald v. CHAS. E. HAZLETINE
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
By the Court:
Chase was a person employed by defendant in the same general business as plaintiff.
The common employer was not bound to respond in damages for any injury occurring to plaintiff by reason of the negligence of Chase, in the absence of evidence that he had neglected to use ordinary care in the selection of Chase as a person properly qualified to discharge the duties imposed upon him. (Civil Code, sec. 1970; McLean v. Blue Point M. Co. 51 Cal. 255 ; Collier v. Steinhart, Ibid. 119.)
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Cites, in this corpus
- McLean v. Blue Point Gravel Mining Co. No. 4924 · 1876-07-01
Cited by
- Stevens v. S. F. & North Pac. R.R. Co. No. 15371 · 1893-12-28
- Daves v. Southern Pacific Co. 14654 · 1893-03-27
- Congrave v. Southern Pacific Railroad No. 13395 · 1891-03-19
- Brown v. Sennett No. 8743 · 1885-12-22