Foerst v. Kelso
California Supreme Court
'After the overruling of the demurr'er to the complaint issue was joined by answer, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict for one thousand dollars damages. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
The complaint in this action prayed damages for injuries occasioned to plaintiff’s property and person by reason of blasting operations negligently conducted by the defendant. It charged that the blasts showered a rain of rocks upon plaintiff’s house and premises, “killing chickens • and breaking boards of house, stable, woodshed, chicken-house, and fence.” That upon on'e occasion “two immense bowlders of rock "were blown upon plaintiff’s premises, one of which struck plaintiff’s stable and passed through the roof, breaking rafters and boards, one of which struck and injured plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Alexander v. Central Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Jacob v. LorenzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Grandona v. LovdalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Mallory v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by6 opinions
- Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Rooney v. Gray Bros.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Hutson v. the Owl Drug Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926
- Eisele v. OddieU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1903
- Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.