Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
W. E. Grace Mfg. Co. v. Arpgreen1 sentence1968Co. v. Arp, 311 S.W.2d 278, 282 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n. r. e. The defendant-appellant attacks the judgment of the trial court and the findings of the jury (omitting certain points of error on assumed risk and the fellow servant rule), on the grounds that the jury findings of negligence are not sustained by the evidence and that the jury was guilty of misconduct. | 1 | 1 |
Hough v. Railway Co.green1 sentence1934Co., 100 U. S., 213 *146 (a Texas case which arose prior to the abolition of the fellow servant rule as to railways), states the reasons of the rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell
green
2 sentences1946Under our foregoing holdings this suit is for damages resulting from the negligence of appellant in failing to provide the deceased with a safe place to work, which is a non-delegable duty to which the fellow servant doctrine does not applyFort Worth Elevator Co. v. Russell, 123 Texas 128 , 70 S.W.2d 397 ; Waxahachie Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. McClain, 27 Tex. Civ.App. 334, 66 S.W. 226 ; 29 Tex.Jur., 152, § 84. 1946Under our foregoing holdings this suit is for damages resulting from the negligence of appellant in failing to provide the deceased with a safe place to work, which is a non-delegable duty to which the fellow servant doctrine does not applyFort Worth Elevator Co. v. Russell, 123 Texas 128 , 70 S.W.2d 397 ; Waxahachie Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. McClain, 27 Tex. Civ.App. 334, 66 S.W. 226 ; 29 Tex.Jur., 152, § 84. | 2 | 1946–1976 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell
green
2 sentences2016Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 168 , 127 S.Ct. 799 , 166 L.Ed.2d 638 (2007) (“In Gottshall we ‘cataloged’ the ways in which FELA expressly departed from the common law: It abolished the fellow servant rule, rejected contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, prohibited employers from contracting around the Act, and abolished the assumption of risk defense.”). 2016Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 168 , 127 S.Ct. 799 , 166 L.Ed.2d 638 (2007) (“In Gottshall we ‘cataloged’ the ways in which FELA expressly departed from the common law: It abolished the fellow servant rule, rejected contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, prohibited employers from contracting around the Act, and abolished the assumption of risk defense.”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Farley v. MM Cattle Company
green
1 sentence1976Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell (1934) 123 Tex. 128 , 70 S.W.2d 397 ; Farley v. M M Cattle Co. (Tex.1975) 529 S.W.2d 751, 757 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
H. & T. C. R'y Co. v. Rider
green
2 sentences1975Co. v. Rider, 62 Tex. 267 (1884), the fellow servant rule is applicable only to those employed by the same master. 1975Co. v. Rider, 62 Tex. 267 (1884), the fellow servant rule is applicable only to those employed by the same master. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Dillingham v. Cavett
neutral
1 sentence1971Therefore the master of such other servants is liable to him for injuries received as a result of their neglect * * * and the fellow-servant rule is not applicable.” The court in Dillingham v. Cavett, 91 S.W.2d 868 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1936, writ dism.), followed the doctrine just set out in deciding that case. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Schroeder v. State Ex Rel. Thomas
neutral
2 sentences1950The fellow servant doctrine was offered as a defense and the court held: “Even if he was a fellow servant, under section 6244, General Code, the fellow servant rule has no application where the negligent act of the fellow servant is ‘done in obedience to the immediate or peremptory instructions or orders given by the employer, or any person who has authority to direct the doing of said act.’ ” [ 31 Ohio App. 446 , 167 N.E. 484 ] Thus it will be seen that, in that case, the recovery under the fellow-servant doctrine was precluded by a statute of the State of Ohio. 1950The fellow servant doctrine was offered as a defense and the court held: “Even if he was a fellow servant, under section 6244, General Code, the fellow servant rule has no application where the negligent act of the fellow servant is ‘done in obedience to the immediate or peremptory instructions or orders given by the employer, or any person who has authority to direct the doing of said act.’ ” [ 31 Ohio App. 446 , 167 N.E. 484 ] Thus it will be seen that, in that case, the recovery under the fellow-servant doctrine was precluded by a statute of the State of Ohio. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Ohm v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1950The fellow servant doctrine was offered as a defense and the court held: “Even if he was a fellow servant, under section 6244, General Code, the fellow servant rule has no application where the negligent act of the fellow servant is ‘done in obedience to the immediate or peremptory instructions or orders given by the employer, or any person who has authority to direct the doing of said act.’ ” [ 31 Ohio App. 446 , 167 N.E. 484 ] Thus it will be seen that, in that case, the recovery under the fellow-servant doctrine was precluded by a statute of the State of Ohio. 1950The fellow servant doctrine was offered as a defense and the court held: “Even if he was a fellow servant, under section 6244, General Code, the fellow servant rule has no application where the negligent act of the fellow servant is ‘done in obedience to the immediate or peremptory instructions or orders given by the employer, or any person who has authority to direct the doing of said act.’ ” [ 31 Ohio App. 446 , 167 N.E. 484 ] Thus it will be seen that, in that case, the recovery under the fellow-servant doctrine was precluded by a statute of the State of Ohio. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Waxahachie Oil Company v. McLain
neutral
1 sentence1946Under our foregoing holdings this suit is for damages resulting from the negligence of appellant in failing to provide the deceased with a safe place to work, which is a non-delegable duty to which the fellow servant doctrine does not applyFort Worth Elevator Co. v. Russell, 123 Texas 128 , 70 S.W.2d 397 ; Waxahachie Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. McClain, 27 Tex. Civ.App. 334, 66 S.W. 226 ; 29 Tex.Jur., 152, § 84. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Gayle v. Missouri Car & Foundry Co.
green
1 sentence1916In Walker v. Railway Co., 103 Tex. 259 , 126 S.W. 262 , Judge Gaines said: "That the work was to be done and how to do it is, in our opinion, a very different thing from directing the work as it was done." In Gayle v. Car Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 427 , 75 S.W. 987 , it was held that the retention of a general supervision over the place where work is done and of the right to inspect various pieces of work to see if they conform to contract does not render the relations between the parties that of master and servant, rather than of independent contractors, so as to make the fellow-servant rule appli | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Walker v. El Paso Electric Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1916In Walker v. Railway Co., 103 Tex. 259 , 126 S.W. 262 , Judge Gaines said: "That the work was to be done and how to do it is, in our opinion, a very different thing from directing the work as it was done." In Gayle v. Car Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 427 , 75 S.W. 987 , it was held that the retention of a general supervision over the place where work is done and of the right to inspect various pieces of work to see if they conform to contract does not render the relations between the parties that of master and servant, rather than of independent contractors, so as to make the fellow-servant rule appli | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.