Foutz v. City of Los Angeles
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. M. T. Dooling, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in an action for damages from personal injuries. The defendant appeals therefrom and also from an order denying a new trial.
The defendant was constructing an aqueduct to bring water from Inyo County to Los Angeles for the use of its inhabitants. It was excavating the canal by means of a suction dredger driven by electric power, operated by four men, all of whom worked under the general direction of a camp foreman named Carter. The mechanical operations of the dredger were under the control of one Berry. While operating the machinery in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Daves v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Donovan v. FerrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Fagundes v. Central Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Trewatha v. Buchanan Gold Mining & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Wall v. Marshutz CantrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Black v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932