Hovedsgaard v. Grand Rapids Store Equipment Corp.
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.
The question confronting us here is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial.
At the time the testimony was offered to the effect that power driven machinery was used in the plant of defendant corporation, plaintiff claimed that the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and of the Employers ’ Liability Act applied to the case. Under the first named law, an employer who has elected not to contribute to the fund provided thereby is deprived of the defense of contributory negligence: Sections 49-1819 and 49-1820, Oregon Code 1930. Under the latter, contributory negligence is…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Globe Accident Insurance v. GerischIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. HembreeOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Schulte v. Pacific Paper Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Garland v. Furst StoreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1919
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Lee v. Meier & Frank Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Lyons v. LichOregon Supreme Court · 1933
- Saunders v. A. M. Williams & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1936
- Briggs v. John Yeon Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Johnson v. UpdegraveOregon Supreme Court · 1949
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.