Dow v. Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. John J. McDonald, Garret W. McEnerney, Wm. B. Bosley, and Samuel Rosenheim, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff was a “trouble shooter” in the employ of the defendant telephone company. His principal duty was to discover and repair minor difficulties attending the telephone service, defective telephones, fallen wires, weakness of batteries, and grounding of wires. Upon the day of the accident he had been sent to locate and remedy a trouble with the telephone belonging to the Pure Water Company. He had been told by his superior that the telephone of the Pure Water Company was “noisy,” and had asked in return if there was “anything hot on it.” He was told in reply that it seemed to be “a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fitzgerald v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Giraude v. Elec. Improvement Co. of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1903
- Dyas v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Polk v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- City & County of San Francisco v. Ho SingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Stasulat v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Holmes v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.