Legal Opinion

Freeman v. Rinkel

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1957No. 34156PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.

Quaere: Can an elective adoption workman under the workmen’s compensation act, injured in the course of his employment, maintain a common-law action for negligence against a defendant who, at the time of the injury, is an employer under the act and is engaged in extrahazardous employment as defined by the act?

Answer: The elective adoption workman cannot maintain such an action.

Facts Which Raise The Issue: C. E. Freeman, office manager of W. P. Fuller & Co., who came under the workmen’s compensation act by virtue of the elective adoption section, was driving an automobile in the course of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Robinson v. McHughWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Denning v. QuistWashington Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Koreski v. Seattle Hardware Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Weiffenbach v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bice v. AndersonWashington Supreme Court · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API