Legal Opinion

Hamerlynck v. Banfield

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1900PublishedCited by 11 opinions

From Multnomah : E. D. Shattuck, Judge. Action for damages by Leo Hamerlynck against M. C. Banfleld and Thomas Rand, partners, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Wolverton

This is an action for damages, arising out of the alleged negligence of the defendants in cutting holes in a bridge on a public street in the City of Portland, and leaving them insecurely covered, by reason whereof the plaintiff was thrown from his wagon in attempting to cross such bridge, and injured. The defense interposed was contributory negligence of plaintiff in attempting to pass over the bridge at a place where the danger was apparent, or in attempting to use the bridge at all, there being an*438other route by which he could hare avoided it altogether. A nonsuit was asked when the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Day v. HollandOregon Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Moses v. Southern Pacific RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Beck v. Vancouver Railway Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Noe v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Gill v. SellingOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Dorn v. WilmarthOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Filkins v. Portland Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914
  5. State v. TurnbowOregon Supreme Court · 1920

6 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