Haskell v. L. H. Kurtz Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Polk 'District Court. — IF. II. MoI-Tenry, Judge. Action to recover damages on account of personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant, alleged to have been dne to the negligence of the defendant, to which no negligence on part of the plaintiff contributed. A verdict for defendant was directed, and this is an appeal from that order.
1Opinion of the CourtSalinger, J.
warning and instructing servant : self-evident dangers. I. A careful analysis of the errors relied upon for reversal, when made in the light of the whole record, narrows what we have for decision. Concede, fdr present purposes, that washing windows was not within the scope of the plaintiff’s employment. That is not material, if it appears that he did wash all but one of the windows without injury or danger of injury, and but for his own fault could have washed all in safety. Concede the abstraction that the employer must furnish a- safe place to work, must warn and instruct, and must furnish…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Cahill v. . HiltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Crown Cotton Mills v. McNallySupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Newbury ex rel. Newbury v. Getchel & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Rummell v. Dilworth, Porter & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Wormell v. Maine Central RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Denney v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- Anderson v. SheuermanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
- Claar Transfer Co. v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- Haller v. Quaker Oats Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Rook v. Davenport, Rock Island & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.