Legal Opinion

Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Brunson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 29, 1926No. 4928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The workmen’s compensation insurance of the state of Oregon is not compulsory. The employer has a right to elect not to come under the act, and by so doing he is stripped of certain of the defenses specified in the statute, such as negligence of a fellow servant, and assumption of risk. See sections 6614-6620, Laws of Oregon. The employer has the right to protect himself by other insurance for injury to his employees. The contract of insurance having relation to the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Oregon, the appellant, in effect, places itself in the same…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Lumberman's Reciprocal Ass'n. v. BehnkenTexas Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Coronado Beach Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Haller v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Boyle v. Columbian Fire Proofing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  5. Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1919

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Adams v. American President Lines, Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. States S. S. Co. v. BerglannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
  3. The President CoolidgeDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1938
  4. Young v. Mason-Walsh-Atkinsonkier Co.District Court, E.D. Washington · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API