Mickel

Mickel v. Althouse

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 205·38 Cal. App. 321·176 P. 51
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1918Civ. No. 2581.California2,246 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendants on account of personal injuries alleged to have resulted from negligence of the defendants. The defendants appeal from the judgment, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

On the twentieth day of February, 1913, the plaintiff was working as carpenter on a house then being constructed for the defendant J. B. Althouse on land owned by Althouse in the city of Los Angeles. In his complaint the plaintiff alleged that he was working under the - direction of the defendants Borden, who had supervision over the plaintiff and the right to direct and control his services, and that those defendants were at that time acting for and on behalf of the owner of the property. In their answer the defendants alleged that the defendants Borden were not acting as superintendents for the owner, but that, on the contrary, they were acting as contractors and not otherwise, and that any work done or services performed by defendants Borden was done and performed under contract with the owner, and that the owner did not have the right to direct and control the services of the plaintiff. The defendants denied the allegations charging…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.