Legal Opinion

Ergo v. Merced Falls Gas & Elec. Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1911No. Sac. No. 1751PublishedCited by 19 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment below and also from an order denying a new trial.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages caused by an electric shock received by him while he was in the service of the defendant. The basis of his complaint is that he was directed by defendant to work in a place where he would be in close proximity to the defendant’s wires charged with a high power and dangerous electric current, and that defendant negligently failed to inform him that .the electricity was then turned on to the wires, or of the dangers therefrom, that he did not know the current…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Giraude v. Elec. Improvement Co. of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Brett v. S. H. Frank & Co.California Supreme Court · 1908

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. People v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Jacobson v. Oakland Meat & Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Weddle v. HeathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

14 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