McDonald v. Hazletine

53 Cal. 35
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1878·No. No. 5249·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

53 Cal. 35 (McDonald v. Hazletine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hardesty v. Largey Lumber Co.
86 P. 29 (Montana Supreme Court, 1906)
Stevens v. S. F. & North Pac. R.R. Co.
35 P. 165 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Daves v. Southern Pacific Co.
32 P. 708 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Congrave v. Southern Pacific Railroad
26 P. 175 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
McBride v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.
21 P. 687 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1889)
Brown v. Sennett
9 P. 74 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Garrahy v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co.
25 F. 258 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1885)