Warning

Info

๐Ÿ… UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

PG&E v. Thomas Drayage

69 Cal. 2d 33 (1968)

tl;dr: Defendant replaced a turbine cover for Plaintiff under an indemnity clause. The cover fell and damaged a rotor, and Plaintiff sought to enforce the indemnity clause even though it wasn't really meant for Plaintiff's use.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

๐Ÿคฏ High points ๐ŸคฏKey points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Defendant G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. performed a task...

Holding:Reversed. Plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the indemnity clause...

PG&E v. Thomas Drayage

Chat for PG&E v. Thomas Drayage
brief-208
๐Ÿ‘ Chat vibe: 0 ๐Ÿ‘Ž
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you