McDonald v. Hazletine

California Supreme Court

McDonald v. Hazletine

53 Cal. 35

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1878

DocketNo. 5249

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 53 Cal. 35 (McDonald v. Hazletine) 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

McDonald v. Hazletine, 53 Cal. 35 (Cal. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

Chase was a person employed by defendant in the same general business as plaintiff.

The common employer was not bound to respond in damages for any injury occurring to plaintiff by reason of the negligence of Chase, in the absence of evidence that he had neglected to use ordinary care in the selection of Chase as a person properly qualified to discharge the duties imposed upon him. (Civil Code, sec. 1970; McLean v. Blue Point M. Co. 51 Cal. 255 ; Collier v. Steinhart, Ibid. 119.)

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

By the Court:

Chase was a person employed by defendant in the same general business as plaintiff.

The common employer was not bound to respond in damages for any injury occurring to plaintiff by reason of the negligence of Chase, in the absence of evidence that he had neglected to use ordinary care in the selection of Chase as a person properly qualified to discharge the duties imposed upon him. (Civil Code, sec. 1970; McLean v. Blue Point M. Co. 51 Cal. 255 ; Collier v. Steinhart, Ibid. 119.)

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Cal. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-hazletine-cal-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack