Legal Opinion

McDonald v. Hoffman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 5, 1909No. Civ. No. 578PublishedCited by 3 opinions

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, denying a new trial. F. H. Kerrigan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Cleveland L. Dam, Charles S. Burnell, and George Appell, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtCooper, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff, caused by the falling of a scaffold, while he was in the employ of the defendant as a carpenter engaged in building a warehouse on Sansome street, in the city and county of San Francisco. At the close of the testimony offered by plaintiff the court granted the motion of the defendant for a nonsuit, and judgment was accordingly entered. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal is from the order so made.

The sole question here is as to whether or not the court erred in granting the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Daves v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Congrave v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Stevens v. S. F. & North Pac. R.R. Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Noyes v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Juntila v. Everett School District No. 24Washington Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Ryan v. Oakland Gas, Light & Heat Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
  3. Barnsdall Oil Co. v. OhlerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API