Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The answer denied that the defendant was in any way responsible for the injuries complained of, and alleged that they were caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.
It was proved at the trial that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to work in its horseshoe-shop in November, 1891, and that he continued to work there until he was injured, on June 13,1892, at which time he was sixteen years of age. When he was employed he was taken by the foreman, Ingram, to one of the machines for making…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ingerman v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Elledge v. Nat'l City & Otay Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Sanborn v. Madera Flume & Trading Co.California Supreme Court · 1886
- Nixon v. Selby Smelting & Lead Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Gisson v. SchwabacherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by20 opinions
- Donnelly v. San Francisco Bridge Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Tedford v. Los Angeles Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Foley v. California Horseshoe Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Avery v. Nordyke & Marmon Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1904
- Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.