Boswell v. Laird
Citations
- 8 Cal. 469
Syllabus
<p>Where parties employed architects, reputed to he skilled in their profession, to construct, at a designated point on a creek, a dam, or embankment, of certain specified dimensions, capable of resisting all floods and freshets of the stream for the period of two years, and to deliver it completed by a given time; and before the embankment was completed it was broken • by a sudden freshet, a:(d a large body of water, confined by it, rushed down the channel of the stream, carrying away and destroying, in its course, the store of plaintiffs, with their stock of merchandise. The employers exercised no supervision, gave no directions, furnished i|o materials, nor had they accepted the work. Plaintiffs having brought suit to recover the damage sustained by them, against the employers and contractors : Held, that the latter alone were liable.</p> <p>The relation of the parties is that of independent contractors; the relation of master and servant, or superior and subordinate, did not exist between them, and therefore the doctrine respondeat superior does not apply to the case. [</p> <p>The architects alone were responsible to third parties, the defectivo construction which caused the injury not being inherent in the original plan contracted for. If the plan of this work had been devised by the owners, and the builders simply engaged to carry it out, and the defects from which the injuries resulted had been inherent in the plan, then the former would have been liable to plaintiffs.</p> <p>A person who undertakes the erection of a building, or other work, for his own benefit, is not responsible for injuries to third persons, occasioned by the negligence of a person, or his servants, who arc actually engaged in executing the whole work, under an independent contractive</p> <p>The right of selection is the basis of the responsibility of a master or principal, for the. acts of his agent. No one can be held responsible, as principal, who has not the right to choose the agent f
Judges: Field, Terry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Stewart v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court· 1961-05-25· cited 131×
- Atlanta & Florida Railroad v. KimberlySupreme Court of Georgia· 1891-04-24· cited 77×
- Gorham v. GrossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1878-08-31· cited 70×
- Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co.California Court of Appeal· 1996-06-27· cited 56×
- Arizona Binghampton Copper Co. v. DicksonArizona Supreme Court· 1921-02-17· cited 55×
- Thornton v. DowWashington Supreme Court· 1910-11-26· cited 41×
- Colgrove v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-03-30· cited 29×
- California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2007-03-15· cited 26×
- Aston v. NolanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-03-26· cited 22×
- Kolburn v. P. J. Walker Co.California Court of Appeal· 1940-04-20· cited 19×
- Barry v. RaskovCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1991-07-18· cited 18×
- Meyer v. Midland Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 14×
- Du Pratt v. LickCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 13×
- Hoff v. ShockleySupreme Court of Iowa· 1904-02-11· cited 12×
- Barrabee v. Crescenta Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal· 1948-10-26· cited 11×
- Williams v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court· 1892-08-24· cited 11×
- Gardner v. Stonestown Corp.California Court of Appeal· 1956-10-25· cited 10×
- La Malfa v. Piombo Bros.California Court of Appeal· 1945-09-25· cited 10×
- Donovan v. Oakland & Berkely Rapid Transit Co.California Supreme Court· 1894-04-21· cited 6×
- Barton v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-22· cited 5×
Other cases named Boswell v. Laird
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.