Legal Opinion

Nolen v. F. O. Engstrum Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1917No. L. A. No. 3990PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for new trial.

The plaintiff recovered judgment for damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was employed by defendant to work as a carpenter in a building which the defendant was erecting, and was put to work upon a scaffold constructed in the building as a place upon which the workmen were to stand when at work on the building; that while plaintiff was so engaged the scaffold gave way, in consequence whereof he fell and received the injuries…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hale v. San Bernardino Valley Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  2. O'Connor v. MennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Penson v. Inland Empire Paper Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Di Mare v. CresciCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Earl v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Biondini v. Amship Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Slovick v. James I. Barnes Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. Johnson v. WeborgNebraska Supreme Court · 1942

7 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