Legal Opinion
Stultz v. Benson Lumber Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1936No. L. A. 15622PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover from the Benson Lumber Company, and Horace Raymond Newby and Charles D. Newby, damages for personal injuries sustained by falling from a collapsing scaffolding on which he was working. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrers of the defendant, Benson Lumber Company, and of the defendants Newby. From the judgment entered accordingly the plaintiff has appealed.
The following facts appear from the complaint: The plaintiff was a painter in the employ of the defendants Newby at San Diego. On April 26, 1934, he was working in the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Devlin v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
- Olds Motor Works v. ShafferCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Richards v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Mosley v. Arden Farms Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Stewart v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Tate v. CanonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.