Bennett v. Truebody
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused through the negligence of the defendant. The further facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
In Milligan v. Wedge, 12 Adol. & E. 737, the distinction between the liability of the master of a mere servant and that of one who contracts with another, who is carrying on an open, distinct, and independent calling or employment, for the production of results, is clearly defined. In that case a butcher, who was the owner of a bullock, employed a drover to drive the animal from one specified place to another. Instead of driving it, the drover employed a boy to drive it. Through his carelessness in driving it a person was injured, and he brought *511an action against the owner of the animal, to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- De Forrest v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1852
- King v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Kellogg v. PayneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- McCarthy v. Second Parish of PortlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880
3Cited by21 opinions
- Hayes v. . Elon CollegeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- Pace v. Appanoose CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Western Indemnity Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon CollegeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- Barton v. Studebaker Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.