Legal Opinion

Fardig v. Reynolds

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1960No. 34994PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDonworth, J.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the tort feasors, Reynolds and Castagno, were the agents of either respondents Sparling, Inc., and Fauschald Sales, Inc., and/or of respondent Mountain Tree Farm Company by virtue of certain logging contracts (described below), so that any or all of these respondents are liable for the negligent acts of Reynolds and Castagno.

Appellant instituted this action against Reynolds and Castagno, partners, engaged in the logging business, who had contracted with him to haul logs for them in his own truck, to recover for serious personal injuries…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Larson v. American Bridge Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1905
  2. In Re Garrity's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Hollingsworth v. Robe Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Swam v. Aetna Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Cassidy v. PetersWashington Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Marquis v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Epperly v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1976
  5. E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. NolandArizona Supreme Court · 1970

17 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