Barrett v. Metropolitan Contracting Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while driving a team furnished to him by defendant under the following circumstances: The city of Los Angeles had entered into a contract with defendant whereby the latter had agreed to furnish suitable horses and their harness and wagons to the city for the purpose of doing its street-sprinkling work. The city was to supply the drivers. The teams and wagons were furnished subject to the approval of the city's inspector or his deputies. "Nothing could leave the yard that was not satisfactory to him." In the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clowdis v. Fresno Flume & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Haneman v. Western Meat Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
3Cited by10 opinions
- Meindersee v. MeyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Talizin v. Oak Creek Riding ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Fererira v. SilveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Arizona Livestock Co. v. WashingtonArizona Supreme Court · 1938
- Hackelberry v. Sherlock Land & Cattle Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.