Bell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. A-48.,A-48. |
| Parties | BELL et al. v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Francis Bell against Humble Oil & Refining Company and another for personal injuries, wherein the Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation intervenes. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals 180 S.W.2d 970 reversing a judgment of the District Court for plaintiff and rendering judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. On motion for rehearing after refusal of writ.
Motion overruled.
Jones, Hardie, Grambling & Howell, of El Paso, John J. Watts, of Crane, and Thos. B. Greenwood, of Austin, for plaintiff in error.
K. W. Gilmore, E. E. Townes, and R. E. Seagler, all of Houston, and Henry Russell, of Pecos, for defendants in error.
We have heretofore refused for want of merit an application for a writ of error in the above cause. Motion for rehearing on such application is now before us.
The evidence in this case conclusively shows that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, Humble Oil & Refining Company, and that he was working in the course of his employment as such employee at the time he was injured. The plaintiff was an employee of Hancock, the independent contractor, during the daytime, or for a part of the day, but was employed by the Humble Oil & Refining Company to work as a night watchman at night in guarding some lumber and other property that the Company had on the premises.
In this connection the plaintiff testified in part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Oil Corporation v. Wright
...249 S.W.2d 662, NRE; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bell, Tex. Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 970, error refused on other grounds, 142 Tex. 645, 181 S.W. 2d 569. And liability under the guise of negligence cannot be saddled on Gulf for its decision not to mud off the water flow. This was Gulf's propert......
-
Lancaster v. Lancaster
...under the doctrine covering this relationship. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 970; Bell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 142 Tex. 645, 181 S.W.2d 569; Le Vonas v. Acme Paper Board Co., 184 Md. 16, 40 A.2d 43; 57 C.J.S., Master and Servant, Sec. 600. We do not, howe......
-
Donch v. Delta Inspection Services, Inc.
...independent contractors. See, E. g., Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bell, 180 S.W.2d 970 (Tex.Civ.App.1943), error refused, 142 Tex. 645, 181 S.W.2d 569 (Sup.Ct.1949); Wellman v. East Ohio Gas Co., 160 Ohio St. 103, 113 N.E.2d 629 (Sup.Ct.1953). In Humble, supra, at 975, the court considered ......
-
Gray v. Baker & Taylor Drilling Co.
...El Paso 1957, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bell, 180 S.W.2d 970, 975 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso), writ ref'd, 142 Tex. 645, 181 S.W.2d 569 (1944). Nevertheless, we recognize that an exception has been grafted into the rule when the employer-contractee exercises control over......