Legal Opinion

Richert v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1965Published

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

Plaintiff workwoman correctly states: “The issue presented by this case is whether the operation of an apartment house building, including its maintenance and repair, is a ‘hazardous occupation.’ ” The trial court held it was not and plaintiff appeals.

It is the occupation of the employer, not the employee, that is determinative. Butler v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 212 Or 330, 334, 318 P2d 303 (1958). The Workmen’s Compensation Act specifies which occupations are hazardous. ORS 656.084. The occupation of operating an apartment house is not specified by the statute as hazardous. The operation of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Butler v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  2. McLean v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Memmott v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API