McDonald v. Hazletine

California Supreme Court
McDonald v. Hazletine, 53 Cal. 35 (Cal. 1878)

McDonald v. Hazletine

Opinion of the Court

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.

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.