Legal Opinion

Rae v. California Equipment Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1939No. L. A. 16716PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the defendant following the granting of the latter’s motion for nonsuit. The action is one for damages for personal injuries.

It appears that shortly prior to the accident which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant, in the usual course of business, rented an electric hoist machine to the Fox Film Corporation by whom the plaintiff was employed as an actor. Defendant’s salesmanager was informed that the hoist machine would be required to carry a load of approximately 2,500 or 3,000 pounds. The Fox Film Corporation by means of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dahms v. General Elevator Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Pastene v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Kalash v. Los Angeles Ladder Co.California Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Stultz v. Benson Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Lacy v. Pacific Gas Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Balido v. Improved MacHinery, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. Armenta v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Hale v. DepaoliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Hard v. Hollywood Turf ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1942

20 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