Burns v. Sennett & Miller
Citations
- 99 Cal. 363
- 33 P. 916
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 671
Syllabus
<p>Masted and Servant—Negligence of Bellow-servant—Personal Duty of Master—Safe Appliances—Adjustment by Servants.—An employee cannot recover judgment against his employer for personal injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, unless the employer has entrusted to such fellow-servant the discharge of a duty which the employer personally owes to Ms servants to use reasonable care in the selection and constrnction of reasonably suitable and safe machinery and appliances for the employee to do his work; but in cases where by the contract of employment, express or implied» the employees are to adjust the appliances by which the work is to be done, the employer is only bound to furnish proper materials from which to construct such appliances, and is not bound to see that they are properly constructed or adjusted, and is not liable to a servant for the negligence of a fellow-servant in making such adjustment.</p> <p>Id.—Appliances of Stevedore—Temporary Adjustment—Defective “Strap” — Negligence of Bellow-servants. — The various isolated and detached pieces of macMnéry and appliances of a stevedore, when put together for the purpose of loading or unloading a particular ship, cannot be considered as one entire and permanent machine or appliance; but from the nature of his business the temporary adjustment of these detached pieces has to be frequently made, and where it is shown to be part of the contract of employment of a gang of men to load a ship, that they are to adjust the appliances with which they are to work, the employer is not liable to an employee for the negligent omission of fellow-employees in adjusting the “strap” to “parcel” it, or cover it with canvas, so as to prevent it from being chafed by contact with the cross-trees, and from breaking or giving away.</p> <p>Id. — Evidence—Oontbaot of Employment.—In an action against a firm of stevedores for negligence in omitting to “parcel the strap” for the loading of a vessel, whereby it gave way, and ca
Judges: McFarland
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Frontier Oil Corp. v. RLI InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2007-09-05· cited 78×
- Callan v. BullCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-08-03· cited 61×
- State v. CoatesWashington Supreme Court· 1900-06-28· cited 31×
- Ah Tong v. Earle Fruit Co.California Supreme Court· 1896-05-22· cited 19×
- Hewitt v. San Jacinto & Pleasant Valley Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-04-03· cited 18×
- Perumean v. WillsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1937-04-09· cited 17×
- Young v. First Nat. BankTennessee Supreme Court· 1924-09-15· cited 13×
- Nixon v. Selby Smelting & Lead Co.California Supreme Court· 1894-05-16· cited 12×
- McNamara v. MacdonoughCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-06-01· cited 12×
- Metzler v. McKenzieWashington Supreme Court· 1904-04-01· cited 9×
- City of Lebanon v. McCoyIndiana Court of Appeals· 1895-05-14· cited 8×
- American Cotton Oil Co. v. DavisWashington Supreme Court· 1924-03-20· cited 7×
- Noyes v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-05-03· cited 7×
- Maxfield v. GravesonSixth Circuit· 1904-06-08· cited 4×
- Burns v. SennettCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-05-15
- Withers v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court· 1903-02-26
- Donovan v. The \Willis A. Holden\D. Hawaii· 1904-02-26
- The FultonN.D. California· 1906-02-15
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BaughSupreme Court· 1893-05-01· cited 342×
- Bowen v. Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1888-04-15· cited 76×
- Barrett v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court· 1891-09-21· cited 73×
- Killea v. FaxonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1878-10-17· cited 45×
- O'Malley v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1890-05-16· cited 38×
- Daves v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court· 1893-03-27· cited 36×
- Congrave v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-03-19· cited 14×
- Stout v. Sioux City & P. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska· 1872-07-01· cited 14×
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.