Caline v. Maede
This text of 396 P.2d 694 (Caline v. Maede) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiff brought this action for damages for personal injuries against his employer. The only question is whether the employer’s continued failure to rectify conditions which twice previously injured plaintiff constitutes “the deliberate intention # # # to produce such injury.” ORS 656.156(2). If it does, plaintiff can maintain this action; if not, plaintiff’s only remedy is Workmen’s Compensation benefits.
Upon the authority of Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co., 79 Or 448, 155 P 703 (1916), and Heikkila v. Ewen Transfer Co., 135 Or 631, 297 P 373 (1931), the trial court’s ruling that this does not constitute “deliberate intention” is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
396 P.2d 694, 239 Or. 239, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caline-v-maede-or-1964.