dual capacity doctrine in Mississippi

6 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1933–1997 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bell v. MacY's Californiagreen calctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1995–1997 2 sentences 1997The court ruled that "[i]n the absence of any indication that Macy's and Bell stepped out of their roles as employer and employee, we decline to apply the dual capacity rule to this case." Id. at 453. ¶ 35. 1995The court ruled that "[i]n the absence of any indication that Macy's and Bell stepped out of their roles as employer and employee, we decline to apply the dual capacity rule to this case." Id. at 453 . ¶35.	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Firestein v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center green nyappdiv · 1988 2 sentences 1997Firestein, 528 N.Y.S.2d at 89 . ¶ 41. 1995Firestein, 528 N.Y.S. 2d at 89 . ¶41.	2	1995–1997
McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis green tenn · 1977 2 sentences 1982In McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis, 550 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1977), the Tennessee court said: "We hold, that in the field of workmen's compensation law, and in suits by a worker against his employer, the initial injury is the cause of all that follows, even where there is superimposed upon the original injury, a new, or additional or independent injury during the course of treatment, negligent or otherwise." We are of the opinion that, under Mississippi statutes, the principle announced in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., [ 53 Cal. App.3d 499 , 125 Cal. Rptr. 872 ], supra, Warwick v. Hudson Pu 1982In McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis, 550 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1977), the Tennessee court said: "We hold, that in the field of workmen's compensation law, and in suits by a worker against his employer, the initial injury is the cause of all that follows, even where there is superimposed upon the original injury, a new, or additional or independent injury during the course of treatment, negligent or otherwise." We are of the opinion that, under Mississippi statutes, the principle announced in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., [ 53 Cal. App.3d 499 , 125 Cal. Rptr. 872 ], supra, Warwick v. Hudson Pu	2	1979–1982
Warwick v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co. Inc. green fladistctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1982In McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis, 550 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1977), the Tennessee court said: "We hold, that in the field of workmen's compensation law, and in suits by a worker against his employer, the initial injury is the cause of all that follows, even where there is superimposed upon the original injury, a new, or additional or independent injury during the course of treatment, negligent or otherwise." We are of the opinion that, under Mississippi statutes, the principle announced in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., [ 53 Cal. App.3d 499 , 125 Cal. Rptr. 872 ], supra, Warwick v. Hudson Pu 1979In McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis, 550 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1977), the Tennessee court said: "We hold, that in the field of workmen's compensation law, and in suits by a worker against his employer, the initial injury is the cause of all that follows, even where there is superimposed upon the original injury, a new, or additional or independent injury during the course of treatment, negligent or otherwise." We are of the opinion that, under Mississippi statutes, the principle announced in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., supra , Warwick v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co., Inc., supra , and McAlister	2	1979–1982
Trotter v. Litton Systems, Inc. green miss · 1979 1 sentence 1995Trotter, 370 So. 2d at 245 .	1	1995–1995
Dixon v. Ford Motor Co. green calctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1982In McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis, 550 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1977), the Tennessee court said: "We hold, that in the field of workmen's compensation law, and in suits by a worker against his employer, the initial injury is the cause of all that follows, even where there is superimposed upon the original injury, a new, or additional or independent injury during the course of treatment, negligent or otherwise." We are of the opinion that, under Mississippi statutes, the principle announced in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., [ 53 Cal. App.3d 499 , 125 Cal. Rptr. 872 ], supra, Warwick v. Hudson Pu 1982In McAlister v. Methodist Hospital of Memphis, 550 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1977), the Tennessee court said: "We hold, that in the field of workmen's compensation law, and in suits by a worker against his employer, the initial injury is the cause of all that follows, even where there is superimposed upon the original injury, a new, or additional or independent injury during the course of treatment, negligent or otherwise." We are of the opinion that, under Mississippi statutes, the principle announced in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., [ 53 Cal. App.3d 499 , 125 Cal. Rptr. 872 ], supra, Warwick v. Hudson Pu	1	1982–1982
Owen v. Mullins green miss · 1967 1 sentence 1974The doctrine of dual capacity was considered by this Court in Strange v. Mercury Marine Inc., 194 So.2d 208 (Miss. 1967) where the Court stated: [T]he master is liable only for those acts of the foreman or superior agent which are official managerial acts those done by him in the actual exercise of his supervisory authority, and not for those which pertain to the duties of a workman.	1	1974–1974
Gulf Refining Co. v. Ferrell green · 1933 2 sentences 1933In the recent case, Gulf Refining Co. v. Ferrell, 165 Miss. 296 , 147 So. 476, 478 , it was said: “It is not only a nondelegable duty of the master to use reasonable care to provide a safe place for the servant to work in 792 the furtherance of the master’s business, but the master may not be relieved of liability in such cases ordinarily by shifting" the responsibility to a fellow-servant, and the negligence of the fellow-servant, in this case, is imputable to the master.” Also in Gulf, M. & N. R. 1933In the recent case, Gulf Refining Co. v. Ferrell, 165 Miss. 296 , 147 So. 476, 478 , it was said: “It is not only a nondelegable duty of the master to use reasonable care to provide a safe place for the servant to work in 792 the furtherance of the master’s business, but the master may not be relieved of liability in such cases ordinarily by shifting" the responsibility to a fellow-servant, and the negligence of the fellow-servant, in this case, is imputable to the master.” Also in Gulf, M. & N. R.	1	1933–1933

Where else courts name it

IL 49 (1945–2014) CA 43 (1977–2026) OH 24 (1976–2013) LA 16 (1981–2004) MI 15 (1980–2000) MO 14 (1909–2021) PA 13 (1981–2023) OK 12 (1918–2024) AZ 9 (1985–2017) NJ 9 (1982–2001) AL 9 (1980–2013) TX 8 (1919–2015) WI 7 (1980–1993) CT 7 (1988–2010) NY 6 (1978–1999) MS 6 (1933–1997) WA 5 (1985–1998) NH 4 (1982–1994) SC 3 (1999–2013) KS 3 (1985–2022) IN 3 (2008–2008) KY 3 (1981–2019) CO 3 (1983–1996) MD 2 (1999–2000) AK 2 (1979–1995) MT 2 (1995–2015) MA 2 (1980–1987) NM 2 (1988–1995) WV 2 (1986–1993) MN 2 (1962–1987) FL 2 (1984–1991) RI 2 (1989–1997) VA 2 (2005–2007) UT 2 (1985–1987) NC 2 (1942–1993) ME 2 (1994–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check