fellow-servant rule in Oklahoma

1942Defendant has cited Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Odom, 172 Okla. 411 , 45 P. 2d 473 ; Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Holland, 56 Okla. 428 , 156 P. 174 , together with other cases applying the fellow servant rule and discussing primary negligence generally.

1942Defendant has cited Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Odom, 172 Okla. 411 , 45 P. 2d 473 ; Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Holland, 56 Okla. 428 , 156 P. 174 , together with other cases applying the fellow servant rule and discussing primary negligence generally.

1991We find the rule repeated in Oklahoma City v. Prieto, 482 P.2d 919 (Okl.1971), to be applicable to this situation.

1991We find the rule repeated in Oklahoma City v. Prieto, 482 P.2d 919 (Okl. 1971), to be applicable to this situation.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1991No. 37, Washita County v. Latimer, 190 Okl. 620 , 126 P.2d 280 (1942); Lowden v. Luther, 190 Okl. 31 , 120 P.2d 359 (1942); Crawford v. Corporation Commission, 188 Okl. 101 , 106 P.2d 806 (1940); Pure Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 179 Okl. 479 , 66 P.2d 1097 (1937) appeal dismissed 58 S.Ct. 15 , 302 U.S. 635 , 82 L.Ed. 494 ; Cooper v. King, 171 Okl. 121 , 42 P.2d 249 (1935); Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okl. 23 , 41 P.2d 697 (1935); Ex parte Owen, 143 Okl. 8 , 286 P. 883 (1930); State v. Wheatley, 20 Okl.Cr. 28 , 200 P. 1004 (1921); Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Hare, 66 Okl.

1988Co., 319 U.S. 715, 720 , 63 S.Ct. 1271, 1274 , 87 L.Ed. 1683 [1943], in which the Court states: "The common-law defenses, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the fellow-servant rule were originated and developed in common ground.

1988Co., 319 U.S. 715, 720 , 63 S.Ct. 1271, 1274 , 87 L.Ed. 1683 [1943], in which the Court states: "The common-law defenses, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the fellow-servant rule were originated and developed in common ground.

1955Carter v. Uhrich, 125 Kan. 192 , 264 P. 31 ; Zarski v. Creamer, 317 Mass. 744 , 59 N.E.2d 704 ; Sandefur v. Sandefur, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga.App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Manee, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.

1955Carter v. Uhrich, 125 Kan. 192 , 264 P. 31 ; Zarski v. Creamer, 317 Mass. 744 , 59 N.E.2d 704 ; Sandefur v. Sandefur, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga.App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Manee, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955Carter v. Uhrich, 125 Kan. 192 , 264 P. 31 ; Zarski v. Creamer, 317 Mass. 744 , 59 N.E.2d 704 ; Sandefur v. Sandefur, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga.App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Manee, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955App. 238 , and compare with Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App.Div. 545 , 126 N.Y.S. 289 , and other cases cited in the Annotations beginning at 48 A.L.R. 1295 , and, in view of the difficulty in consistently applying some of the rules that have been announced regarding the fellow servant doctrine we hesitate to announce one here, but we think each case must be determined on the basis of its own individual facts.

1955App. 238 , and compare with Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App.Div. 545 , 126 N.Y.S. 289 , and other cases cited in the Annotations beginning at 48 A.L.R. 1295 , and, in view of the difficulty in consistently applying some of the rules that have been announced regarding the fellow servant doctrine we hesitate to announce one here, but we think each case must be determined on the basis of its own individual facts.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955Carter v. Uhrich, 125 Kan. 192 , 264 P. 31 ; Zarski v. Creamer, 317 Mass. 744 , 59 N.E.2d 704 ; Sandefur v. Sandefur, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga.App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Manee, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.

1955Carter v. Uhrich, 125 Kan. 192 , 264 P. 31 ; Zarski v. Creamer, 317 Mass. 744 , 59 N.E.2d 704 ; Sandefur v. Sandefur, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga.App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Manee, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.

1955Though we realize that some might regard the cited case as within the same class as the so-called “domestic servant” cases; whose decisions lack harmony see Lamar v. Collins, 252 Ill.App. 238 , and compare with Erjauschek v. Kramer, 141 App.Div. 545 , 126 N.Y.S. 289 , and other cases cited in the Annotations beginning at 48 A.-LiR. 1295, and, in view óf the difficulty in consistently applying some of the rules that have been announced regarding the fellow servant doctrine we hesitate to announce one here, but we think each case must be determined on-the basis of its 'own individual facts.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1955App., 232 S.W.2d 111 , and Blanchard v. Gallahar, 72 Ga. App. 132 , 33 S.E.2d 379 , all cited by defense counsel are readily distinguishable on the basis of their facts from the case at bar (without regard to any inconsistencies in the application of their statements of the fellow servant rule) but Charles Weaver & Co. v. Harding, 182 Miss. 345 , 180 So. 825 (also cited) is not so readily distinguishable, if at all, from cases like Haraway v. Mance, 186 Ark. 971 , 56 S.W.2d 1023 , and French v. Cherry, 186 Ark. 991 , 57 S.W.2d 404 which reached opposite results.

1952This general rule has been applied to a great variety of statutes, including the uniform negotiable instruments law, usury laws, statutes levying taxes, relating to defenses to actions on insurance policies, relating to damages for wrongs, providing for rendition of deficiency judgments upon sale of mortgaged premises, limiting the time for the commencement of actions, declaring certain contracts void, regulating parties who may sue for death by wrongful act, or the manner of distribution of the amount recovered, modifying the fellow servant rule, relating to plans for bridges over railroad tr

1952This general rule has been applied to a great variety of statutes, including the uniform negotiable instruments law, usury laws, statutes levying taxes, relating to defenses to actions on insurance policies, relating to damages for wrongs, providing for rendition of deficiency judgments upon sale of mortgaged premises, limiting the time for the commencement of actions, declaring certain contracts void, regulating parties who may sue for death by wrongful act, or the manner of distribution of the amount recovered, modifying the fellow servant rule, relating to plans for bridges over railroad tr

1945In Kreps v. Brady, 37 Okla. 734 , 133 P. 216 , the fellow servant rule was applied where it was charged that a driller failed to help a worker tie a rope about the worker which was to be used as a guard by the injured party.

1943Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U. S. 66 , 36 S. Ct. 249 , 60 L.

1943Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U. S. 66 , 36 S. Ct. 249 , 60 L.

1942Defendant has cited Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Odom, 172 Okla. 411 , 45 P. 2d 473 ; Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Holland, 56 Okla. 428 , 156 P. 174 , together with other cases applying the fellow servant rule and discussing primary negligence generally.

1942Defendant has cited Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Odom, 172 Okla. 411 , 45 P. 2d 473 ; Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Holland, 56 Okla. 428 , 156 P. 174 , together with other cases applying the fellow servant rule and discussing primary negligence generally.

1910It is the duty of the master to use ordinary care to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, and this duty cannot be delegated. [Parker v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 362 , 19 S. W. 1119 ; Herdler v. Buck Stove & Range Co., 136 Mo. 3 , 37 S. W. 115 ; Combs v. Construction Co., 205 Mo. 367 , 104 S. W. 77 .] While the master is held to the use of ordinary care to furnish his servant a reasonably safe place to work y.et when he has done this he has discharged his whole duty, and in doing this he may trust the servant himself, or a fellow-servant, to perform the ordinary and simple dut

1910It is the duty of the master to use ordinary care to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, and this duty cannot be delegated. [Parker v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 362 , 19 S. W. 1119 ; Herdler v. Buck Stove & Range Co., 136 Mo. 3 , 37 S. W. 115 ; Combs v. Construction Co., 205 Mo. 367 , 104 S. W. 77 .] While the master is held to the use of ordinary care to furnish his servant a reasonably safe place to work y.et when he has done this he has discharged his whole duty, and in doing this he may trust the servant himself, or a fellow-servant, to perform the ordinary and simple dut

1910It is the duty of the master to use ordinary care to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, and this duty cannot be delegated. [Parker v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 362 , 19 S. W. 1119 ; Herdler v. Buck Stove & Range Co., 136 Mo. 3 , 37 S. W. 115 ; Combs v. Construction Co., 205 Mo. 367 , 104 S. W. 77 .] While the master is held to the use of ordinary care to furnish his servant a reasonably safe place to work y.et when he has done this he has discharged his whole duty, and in doing this he may trust the servant himself, or a fellow-servant, to perform the ordinary and simple dut