Legal Opinion
Dayton v. Boeing Company
District Court, D. Montana
Decided February 11, 1975No. Civ. 3198PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
RUSSELL E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
The question, submitted upon an agreed statement, is whether by reason of workmen’s compensation and occupational disease coverage plaintiff may maintain this action.
Plaintiff James Dayton (Dayton) seeks damages for injuries sustained by him as a result of his exposure to electromagnetic pulses and laser radiations while employed by the defendant. His wife, Gwen Dayton, seeks damages for loss of consortium.
Dayton was employed in Montana from 1968 to October 18, 1971, and in Missouri from about October 18, 1971, to June 16, 1972. The major part of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marie v. Standard Steel WorksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
- Staples v. AP Green Fire Brick CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Arthur L. Summer v. Victor Chemical Works, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- Luther L. King v. Monsanto Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1958
- Anaconda Co. v. District Court of the Second Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McCoy v. Liberty Foundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- Ridenour v. Equity Supply Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1983
- Greger v. United Prestress, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1979