Legal Opinion
Wallace v. United States
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided October 1, 1926No. 10036PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The testimony does not disclose negligence on the part of the libelant. He exercised due care and caution under the circumstances. The conduct of the painters in the arrangement of the scaffolding, and in changing and moving the same without notice to the libelant of the changing condition, did not show reasonable care and caution. The libelant was not required to exercise care to discover extraordinary dangers arising from the acts of the owner’s employees or of the contractor, but had a right to assume that proper care would be taken for his protection…
2Cases cited83 opinions
- Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. TolsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Batson-Cook Co. v. Industrial Steel ErectorsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
- Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Mayor of MeridianCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1935
- Fire Association of Phila. v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1955
- Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., Limited v. JansenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.