Caline v. Maede
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lusk v. Monaco Motor Homes, Inc. (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
- Eriksen v. Salem-Keizer School District No. 24J (District Court, D. Oregon 2025)
- Davis v. United States Employers Council, Inc. (Or. Ct. App. 1997)
- Kilminster v. Day Management Corp. (Or. 1996)
- Palmer v. Bi-Mart Company (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
- Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc. (Or. 1976)
- Meagher v. Lamb-Weston, Inc. (District Court, D. Oregon 1993)
- Robert John Gulden v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, Gregory Steele v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation (9th Cir. 1989)
- Leicht v. Venture Stores, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
- Duk Hwan Chung v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (Or. 1976)
- Foster v. Allsop Automatic, Inc. (Wash. 1976)
- Black Diamond Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiff brought this action for damages for personal injuries against his employer. The only question is whether the employer’s continued failure to rectify conditions which twice previously injured plaintiff constitutes “the deliberate intention # # # to produce such injury.” ORS 656.156(2). If it does, plaintiff can maintain this action; if not, plaintiff’s only remedy is Workmen’s Compensation benefits.
Upon the authority of Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co., 79 Or 448, 155 P 703 (1916), and Heikkila v. Ewen Transfer Co., 135 Or 631, 297 P 373 (1931), the trial court’s ruling that this does not constitute “deliberate intention” is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.