fellow-servant doctrine in Kentucky

1919Co. v. Hibbitt, 139 Ky. 43 : “The fellow servant rule is invoked in many cases, but applied in few.

1919Co. v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; Louisville Railway Co. v. Hibbit, 139 Ky. 43 ; Harris v. Rex Coal Company, 177 Ky. 630 , and cases referred to therein, Noe and the deceased were not fellow servants so as to relieve the master of liability for the negligence of the former, and that the court erred in applying the fellow servant doctrine to the facts of this case.

1919Co. v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; Louisville Railway Co. v. Hibbit, 139 Ky. 43 ; Harris v. Rex Coal Company, 177 Ky. 630 , and cases referred to therein, Noe and the deceased were not fellow servants so as to relieve the master of liability for the negligence of the former, and that the court erred in applying the fellow servant doctrine to the facts of this case.

1917L. & N. Railroad v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; City Railway Co. v. Hibbitt, 139 Ky. 43 ; City Railway Co. v. Haynes, 128 S. W. 1055 ; Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Tuggle, 156 Ky. 714 ; L. & N. Railroad v. Moore, 156 Ky. 708 .

1998Co., 128 Ky. 820 , 110 S.W. 296, 297 , 33 Ky. Law Rep. 301 , 16 L.R.A.N.S. 1052 : “The master must exercise ordinary care in the selection of his servants and if he fails to exercise such care, and one of the servants is injured by the incapacity of another servant, the master is liable, but the incapacity of the fellow servant must relate to the duties required of him by the master.” But the rule has no application in cases where the injuries are inflicted by a servant upon a third person, as is pointed out in 35 Am.Jur., See. 548, p. 978, wherein it is said: “The rule as to the liability of

1998Co., 128 Ky. 820 , 110 S.W. 296, 297 , 33 Ky. Law Rep. 301 , 16 L.R.A.N.S. 1052 : “The master must exercise ordinary care in the selection of his servants and if he fails to exercise such care, and one of the servants is injured by the incapacity of another servant, the master is liable, but the incapacity of the fellow servant must relate to the duties required of him by the master.” But the rule has no application in cases where the injuries are inflicted by a servant upon a third person, as is pointed out in 35 Am.Jur., See. 548, p. 978, wherein it is said: “The rule as to the liability of

1989The court premised its ruling on the fellow servant doctrine, defined in Ru *440 ble v. Stone, Ky., 430 S.W.2d 140 (1968), as follows: A master is not liable to a servant or subservant who, while acting within the scope of his employment or in connection therewith, is injured solely by the negligence of a fellow servant in the performance of acts not involving a violation of the master’s non-delegable duties, unless the servant was coerced or deceived into serving, was too young to appreciate the risks, or was employed in violation of statute.

1982The so-called fellow servant immunity has its basis in case law beginning with Miller v. Scott, Ky., 339 S.W.2d 941 (1960).

1947Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad Co. v. Sydor, 119 Ky. 18 , 82 S. W. 989 , 26 Ky. Law Rep. 951 , 68 L.

1947Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad Co. v. Sydor, 119 Ky. 18 , 82 S. W. 989 , 26 Ky. Law Rep. 951 , 68 L.

1932McGaughey v. Hines, Director General of Railroads, 193 Ky. 312 , 235 S. W. 742 .

1932McGaughey v. Hines, Director General of Railroads, 193 Ky. 312 , 235 S. W. 742 .

1930Another case of this character is Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Boone, 175 Ky. 271 , 194 S. W. 103, 104 , where an employee engaged with three others in moving a piano was injured, according to his evidence, when the foreman of the crew standing nearby and observing that the method being pursued was not the usual and proper one, gave the command “Keep her up, boys,” and in obedience to that order the plaintiff and other men retained their positions and proceeded with the work, causing the piano or its weight to be cast on plaintiff.

1930Another case of this character is Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Boone, 175 Ky. 271 , 194 S. W. 103, 104 , where an employee engaged with three others in moving a piano was injured, according to his evidence, when the foreman of the crew standing nearby and observing that the method being pursued was not the usual and proper one, gave the command “Keep her up, boys,” and in obedience to that order the plaintiff and other men retained their positions and proceeded with the work, causing the piano or its weight to be cast on plaintiff.

1919Co. v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; Louisville Railway Co. v. Hibbit, 139 Ky. 43 ; Harris v. Rex Coal Company, 177 Ky. 630 , and cases referred to therein, Noe and the deceased were not fellow servants so as to relieve the master of liability for the negligence of the former, and that the court erred in applying the fellow servant doctrine to the facts of this case.

1917L. & N. Railroad v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; City Railway Co. v. Hibbitt, 139 Ky. 43 ; City Railway Co. v. Haynes, 128 S. W. 1055 ; Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Tuggle, 156 Ky. 714 ; L. & N. Railroad v. Moore, 156 Ky. 708 .

1917L. & N. Railroad v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; City Railway Co. v. Hibbitt, 139 Ky. 43 ; City Railway Co. v. Haynes, 128 S. W. 1055 ; Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Tuggle, 156 Ky. 714 ; L. & N. Railroad v. Moore, 156 Ky. 708 .

1917L. & N. Railroad v. Brown, 127 Ky. 732 ; City Railway Co. v. Hibbitt, 139 Ky. 43 ; City Railway Co. v. Haynes, 128 S. W. 1055 ; Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Tuggle, 156 Ky. 714 ; L. & N. Railroad v. Moore, 156 Ky. 708 .

1916Louisville Railway Co. v. Martin Hibbitt, 129 S. W. 319 , 139 Ky. 43 ; Milton’s Admr. v. Frankfort & Versailles Traction Co., 139 Ky. 53 .

1914Angel v. Jellico Coal Mining Co., 115 Ky., 728 ; Van Dyke v. Mem.