Legal Opinion
McFaul v. Madera Flume and Trading Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided October 11, 1901No. Sac. No. 809PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. D. N. Burnett, Frank H. Short, and H. E. Wilcox, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, recovered judgment against it for the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, as damages for personal injuries suffered by him, in the course of his employment, by reason of a defective machine. This appeal is prosecuted from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
It is first urged that the complaint does not state a cause of action, the specific objection being that it fails to allege that “the plaintiff was injured while in the necessary and proper discharge of his duty.” No specific demurrer was directed to this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dyas v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Burch v. Valley Motor Lines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Herlihy v. ReillyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Bennett v. HogeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Murray v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949