Massey v. Tube Art

Massey v. Tube Art - to. Two people were killed and the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ryan Brandenburg BSAD 3140 5/12/2009 Massey v. Tube Art Display, Inc. Citation: Massey v. Tube Art Display, Inc. Court of Appeals of Washington, District 1 (1976) 15 Wash.App 782, 551 P.2d 1387 Statement of facts: Plaintiff: Massey Defendant: Tube Art Display, Inc. A Tube Art Employee marked out a four by four area for a hole to be dug in that area for a sign Tube Art was putting there. Later, an independent contractor of Tube Art’s, Richard F. Redford, dug the hole that was marked out earlier with a backhoe. While digging, Redford struck a small natural gas pipe. The pipe did not appear to be leaking, so Redford concluded the pipe was inactive. Early the next day, there was an explosion at the building that the pipe fed gas
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: to. Two people were killed and the buildings contents were destroyed in the explosion. Masey, the buildings tenant, brought a lawsuit against Tube Art for work they lost in the explosion. Legal Issue: If a agent is an independent, is he liable for damages created? Decision: Judgment for Massey affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Washington. Reasoning: As Redford was an independent contractor, he has control how he does the job by the agency. However he gets his instructions from the agency he is working for. Because Tube Art determined the size and location of the hole Redford was to dig no error was made by Redford....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course BSAD 3140 taught by Professor Fydrich during the Spring '08 term at Wisc Platteville.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online