Washington Law Review
Abstract
D, a foreign corporation engaged in manufacturing chemicals, sold to X scrap iron including a coil of pipe which D had used in its business. P, an employee of a salvage dealer, was ordered by his employer to pick up the scrap iron at X's yard. In order to place the coil of pipe in proper position on his truck, P struck the pipe with a maul, the force of the blow causing a corrosive substance to issue from the pipe and injure P. Instead of taking compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, P elected to sue the tortfeasor. Judgment for P in Trial Court Appeal. Held: Affirmed. D is not within the immunity provision of Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7675 [P.P.C. § 709-1] since, though P's injury was connected with D's extrahazardous employment, the connection is remote and not "temporal." Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co. of Wash. v. Haynes, 184 F. 2d 355 (9th Cir., 1950).
First Page
76
Recommended Citation
Richard M. Oswald,
Recent Cases,
Workmen's Compensation Act—Immunity of Third Party Employer,
27 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
76
(1952).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol27/iss1/6