Legal Opinion

Quinn v. Electric Laundry Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1909No. S.F. No. 4903PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

This is an action for damages by a young woman, employed by defendant corporation, who was severely injured while operating a mangle in defendant’s laundry. Judgment for twenty-five hundred dollars was given in favor of plaintiff. From the judgment and from the order denying a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff, who was about nineteen years of age, was wholly unfamiliar with the operation of machinery; that she had been engaged by defendant as a “shaker out,” and that as such she was required to shake garments and prepare them for the mangling…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Foley v. California Horseshoe Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Helling v. SchindlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Ingerman v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Stager v. Troy Laundry Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.California Supreme Court · 1897

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Jacobson v. Oakland Meat & Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Tucker v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Moore v. BurtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Guyer v. Sterling Laundry Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Cooley v. Brunswig Drug Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API