Legal Opinion

Kevern v. Providence Gold & Silver Mining Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided August 12, 1886No. 11545PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.

The court below granted a nonsuit. The evidence showed that the shaft in which the plaintiff was injured had been • divided by a row of posts extending down the center at a distance of about four feet from each other, firmly fixed in the roof and base-pieces; that in the space to the right of the row of posts, looking down, there was a laddér-way to be used by the men working in the mine, consisting of a row of steps about" fourteen inches wide and close to the posts; that in the other compartment of the shaft there was a double-rail car-track. The plaintiff when injured was ascending the…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Luman v. Golden Ancient Channel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Worley v. Spreckels Bros. Commercial Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Trewatha v. Buchanan Gold Mining & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Vizelich v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Fogarty v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

4 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