Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fazio v. Corey Bros. Construction Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1913No. 2442Published

Appeal from District Court, Second District; Hon. J.. A. Howell, Judge. Action by Joseph Fazio against tbe Corey Brothers Construction Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

1DissentStnatjp, J.

I dissent. I think the instruction not only erroneous but harmful. The theory of plaintiff’s case, as alleged in his complaint and upon which he went to the jury, is not that the defendant was negligent in selecting an improper or dangerous place to thaw the dynamite, or that the manner of thaYidng it was unusual, improper, or negligent, but that the defendant carelessly, negligently, and wrongfully ordered and permitted the plaintiff to ’work in close proximity “of a dangerous explosive,” without giving him notice or warning of the danger, he, as alleged, having been without knowledge or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. WarrenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API