153 Mich. 266 | Mich. | 1908
(after stating the facts).
Another argument advanced by plaintiff compels us to consider the question: Was defendant responsible for the negligence of Hillprecht in performing a delegable duty ? This question is answered in the negative by many decisions of this court. See Guest v. Illuminating Co., 150 Mich. 438; Amoe v. Engineering Works, 151 Mich. 212, and authorities cited in these two opinions.
We conclude that the trial court properly directed a verdict in defendant’s favor.
Judgment is affirmed.