Legal Opinion

Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1977No. S.F. 23486PublishedCited by 84 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TOBRINER, Acting C. J.

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged injuries caused by his employers’ failure to provide him a safe place to work; his amended complaint, filed after the statute of limitations had run, added a cause of action alleging that his injuries resulted from a defective machine manufactured by defendant Nicholson Manufacturing Company (hereinafter Nicholson). The trial court sustained Nicholson’s. demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgment for Nicholson.

We reverse that judgment, In Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596 [15…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Grudt v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Barnes v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Garrett v. Crown Coach Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Jensen v. Royal PoolsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

3Cited by84 opinions

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Tyrone Merritt v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  3. Santamarina, Guiller v. Sears RoebuckCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
  4. Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Okun v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981

79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API