Legal Opinion
Inman v. Home Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided January 10, 1919No. 14923PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of -the superior court for Spokane county, Jurey, J., entered February 7, 1918, upon granting a nonsuit, dismissing an action for personal injuries sustained while using a telephone.
1Opinion of the CourtMackintosh, J.
J. W. Fortune had in his residence a telephone installed by the defendant, which owned the wiring, instrument and equipment and furnished the ordinary telephone service. The plaintiffs were neighbors, living about a block distant from Fortune, and were not telephone subscribers. The plaintiff wife was injured while using the telephone, all the testimony in regard to the matter being the following:
“Q. Were you at the Fortune home on September 5, 1916? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you try to use the telephone on that day? A. Yes. Q. Had you frequently used that phone before? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will ask…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Greenville v. PittsTexas Supreme Court · 1908
- State Ex Rel. Stansfield v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
- Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. McTyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Martin's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Bradley v. SobolewskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Garner v. Pacific Coast Coal Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1940
- Moohr v. Victoria Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1927
- Mentzer v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Knox v. KrauseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929