Legal Opinion

Graham v. Arall, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1962No. File 9955PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBiegelmeier, J.

Plaintiff, an experienced pipe welder, recovered a verdict for injuries received while working on a gas distribution system being installed by defendant pipe-line contractor. As the relationship of the parties is that of independent contractors, defendant's duty as to plaintiff is first to be examined.

A contractor owes the same duty to care for the safety of his subcontractor as for his own employee. This follows from Polluck v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 45 S.D. 210, 186 N.W. 830, where this duty was said to be owing to the subcontractor's employee. The standard is ordinary or reasonable…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. BeltSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Coin v. John H. Talge Lounge Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  3. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. HouckSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Schmeling v. JorgensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Barger v. ChelponSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Limmer v. WestegaardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Hannahs v. NoahSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Hannahs v. NoahSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API