Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Multnomah Operating Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1936PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

Appellant’s (defendant’s) only assignment of error challenges the order of the circuit court which overruled its motion for a directed verdict. The defendant operates a hotel in the city of Portland. The plaintiff, one of its employees, was injured September 7, 1932, by the hotel’s ice-crushing machine which was being altered under his supervision. His complaint, which is predicated upon the Employers’ Liability Act (§§ 49-1701-49-1707, Oregon Code 1930), alleges that the defendant was negligent in the following particulars: (1) in requiring him to work in a place rendered dangerous by an icy…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Frese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. City of Teague v. RadfordTexas Commission of Appeals · 1933
  3. Davis v. PayneOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Moen v. AitkenOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Woelflen v. Lewiston-Clarkston Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1908

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Fields v. FieldsOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Skeeters v. SkeetersOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Howard v. Foster & Kleiser Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Galer v. WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Baird v. BoyerOregon Supreme Court · 1949

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