McDonald v. Hazletine
California Supreme Court
McDonald v. Hazletine, 53 Cal. 35 (Cal. 1878)
McDonald v. Hazletine
Opinion of 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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EDWARD McDonald v. CHAS. E. HAZLETINE
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence of Pellow-Servant.—The common employer is not liable fo' injuries to a servant caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, in the: absence of evidence that the employer had neglected to use ordinary care in the selection of the fellow-servant.