foreseeableness becomes important doctrine in Texas

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1960Thus the doctrine of foreseeableness becomes important.” *101 We also find the following language in the Robertson case, supra [ 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W. 2d 831 ]: “The person charged with the act or omission cannot be consciously indifferent to the rights or welfare of another unless he knows, or should know, that such another will probably be affected by the act or omission.

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1947Thus the doctrine of foreseeableness becomes important.” In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Ford, Tex.Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 97, 101 , this court said: “We doubt if gross negligence could possibly exist under the general circumstances of the case, as disclosed by appellee’s evidence, in the absence, among other things, of (a) certain knowledge on the part of appellant that the deceased would rest the entire weight of the table so as to ibe supported alone by the strength of this collar; (b) that the collar in such case was so weakened by the reaming out process that it would break; and (c) certain know

1935The Court of Civil Appeals in Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Ford, 14 S. W. (2d) 97 , rested its decision, that the evidence did not raise the issue of gross negligence, very largely upon the conclusion that the employer could not reasonably have foreseen that the employee would place himself in the particular position in which he was injured.

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1966Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex. 4 , 79 S.W.2d 830, 831 , 98 A.L.R. 262 .” We feel that the following Texas authorities, and many others, support our ruling that the summary judgment evidence raises no genuine fact issue as to defendant being guilty of gross negligence proximately causing the accident on the occasion in question: Rowan v. Allen, Tex.Com.App., 134 S.W.2d 1022 ; Sheffield Division Armco Steel Corporation v. Jones, Tex.Sup.Ct., 376 S.W.2d 825 ; Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , 249 S.W.2d 194 ; Raub v. Rowe, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 190 , writ ref.; Linn v. Nored, Tex.Civ.Ap

1954Thus the doctrine of foreseeableness becomes important.” In the case of Bennett v. Howard, 141 Tex. 101 , 170 S.W.2d 709 , which is perhaps the latest expression of the Texas Supreme Court on the subject, Judge Sharp reviewed at length the applicable Texas authorities relating to gross negligence and followed the definition given by Judge Stayton in Missouri Pac.

1954Thus the doctrine of foreseeableness becomes important.” In the case of Bennett v. Howard, 141 Tex. 101 , 170 S.W.2d 709 , which is perhaps the latest expression of the Texas Supreme Court on the subject, Judge Sharp reviewed at length the applicable Texas authorities relating to gross negligence and followed the definition given by Judge Stayton in Missouri Pac.