Legal Opinion

Hauswirth v. Pom-Arleau

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1941No. Nos. 28326, 28327PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinert, J.

Plaintiff brought two actions to recover damages resulting from an automobile collision alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants. In the first action, plaintiff, individually and as guardian ad litem for his eighteen year old son, Richard Hauswirth, sought recovery for personal injuries to the minor, for medical expenses, and for loss of the minor’s services. Defendants in their answer denied negligence on their part, pleaded contributory negligence on the part of Richard Hauswirth, the minor son, and by way of cross-complaint sought recovery of damages caused by the…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Martin v. HadenfeldtWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Morris v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Delsman v. BertottiWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Hefner v. PatteeWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Oyster v. DyeWashington Supreme Court · 1941

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Adkisson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Owens v. KuroWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Shultes v. HalpinWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Hardman v. YounkersWashington Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Knight v. BorganWashington Supreme Court · 1958

33 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