Latimer v. Western MacHinery Exchange
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
In an action for personal injuries, we find ourselves primarily concerned with the validity of the defense that the injured man had no cause of action'because he was engaged in an extrahazardous occupation and was or could have been under the protection of the Washington workmen’s compensation act, and that the defendant, even if a tort-feasor, was an employer under that act, with all premiums paid. This defense is based upon what is called the immunity provision of the workmen’s compensation act. Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 7675 [P.P.C. § 709-1], gives to the workman who is under the act and…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Zappala v. Industrial Insurance CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Edwards v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1928
- Carsten v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Johnson v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1949
- Koreski v. Seattle Hardware Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Peterson v. HaganWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Kitsap-Mason Dairymen's Ass'n v. Washington State Tax CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1970
- LeMaine v. SealsWashington Supreme Court · 1955
- Morton v. McDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1953
- Latimer v. Western MacHinery ExchangeWashington Supreme Court · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.