Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Bennett

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1888PublishedCited by 33 opinions

Appeal from Multnomah County.

1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant’s two servants and agents. The complaint in effect is that the defendant was engaged in constructing the tunnel on the line of the Northern Pacific R. R. Co., and that the plaintiff was engaged in his service for hire as a common laborer during the time therein mentioned; that Thomas Cosgrove was the foreman, manager, and superintendent of said work, and that jfiaintiff was direct" under his control and authority, and that by reason of his negligence he was greatly injured and his…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Northern Pacific Railroad v. HerbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. Flike v. . Boston and Albany R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
  4. Indiana Car Co. v. ParkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Barbaroux v. BarkerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1JOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. DuranSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  4. Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Knahtla v. Oregon Short Line, etc., Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891

28 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