Hallower v. Henley

6 Cal. 209
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 Cal. 209 (Hallower v. Henley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hallower v. Henley, 6 Cal. 209 (Cal. 1856).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The rule of law regulating the obligation between master and servant, or contractor and workman, is, that the latter is liable for all accidents occurring in the course of the employment, which are not induced by the carelessness or improper conduct of the employer. In other words, the master is bound to use reasonable care and diligence to prevent accident or injury, and if he does not, he will be responsible for the damages. 4 Metcalf, 55; and 5 Exchequer, 341.

The jury in the present case have found by their verdict, a want of care in providing a suitable and safe means by which the plaintiff could perform Ms labor, which fact was unknown to him at the time of the accident. The testimony on which the finding was based, has not been sent up. We cannot inquire into the propriety of the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stoll v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.
205 F. 169 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
Garrahy v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co.
25 F. 258 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1885)
Heyer v. Salsbury
7 Ill. App. 93 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1880)
Price v. Houston Direct Navigation Co.
46 Tex. 535 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cal. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallower-v-henley-cal-1856.