Casualty Underwriters v. Rhone
| Decision Date | 18 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 2258-7362.,2258-7362. |
| Citation | 132 S.W.2d 97 |
| Parties | CASUALTY UNDERWRITERS v. RHONE et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This case was well stated and correctly decided by the Court of Civil Appeals. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rhone, 110 S.W.2d 621. A somewhat condensed statement will be made here.
It is a compensation case. The principal question involved from the beginning of the litigation has been, from which of two insurance carriers the injured employee, Upshur Rhone, should recover. The answer to that question depends upon the answer to the further question of who was his employer at the time he sustained his injuries. Plaintiff in error Casualty Underwriters was the insurance carrier for C. H. McDaniel, and Traders and General Insurance Company was the insurance carrier for Beaumont Development Corporation. The latter, as general contractor, was engaged in the construction of a building in Beaumont. It sublet the steel frame work to McDaniel. Rhone had been in the general employment of McDaniel for more than fifteen years. J. P. McCarter was the foreman for Beaumont Development Corporation, and it was his duty to coordinate the work of the general contractor and the various subcontractors and to see that the building was erected according to the plans and specifications.
On the morning of the injury Rhone came to work for his regular employer, McDaniel. While engaged in the usual course of his employment he was instructed by McCarter to remove a steel joist which was in the way of the plumbing subcontractor and interfered with his work. The joist had been placed in the building by McDaniel's employees according to the plans. After Rhone had removed the joist and was starting to climb down a ladder he fell and was injured. Rhone joined both insurance carriers in the suit, and in the trial court judgment was rendered in his favor against Traders and General Insurance Company, based upon a jury finding that Beaumont Development Corporation, its insured, was the employer of Rhone at the time he sustained his injuries.
Traders and General Insurance Company perfected its appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals and Rhone likewise perfected his appeal, complaining of the action of the trial court in denying him a recovery against Casualty Underwriters. The Court of Civil Appeals at Beaumont held, as a matter of law, that Rhone was employed by McDaniel at the time he received his injuries, and accordingly rendered judgment that he take nothing against Traders and General Insurance Company, but that he recover against Casualty Underwriters. Rhone did not file an application for writ of error. The application of Casualty Underwriters was granted because it appeared to the court that an issue of fact was probably presented.
A more careful study of the entire record than we were able to give it in considering the application for writ of error has led us to the firm conclusion that the Court of Civil Appeals correctly decided that Rhone was employed by McDaniel at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis
...167, 157 S.W.2d 628, 631 (1941). But the principle in Henry has been applied to evidence other than hearsay. In Casualty Underwriters v. Rhone, 134 Tex. 50, 132 S.W.2d 97 (1939), Rhone sought compensation for injuries sustained while working on a construction site. The dispute centered on w......
-
BMLA, Inc. v. Jordan
...to support a judgment. Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. , 136 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2004) ; Cas. Underwriters v. Rhone , 134 Tex. 50, 132 S.W.2d 97, 99 (1939) (holding that witness's statements were "but bare conclusions and therefore incompetent"); see also Wadewitz v. Mo......
-
City of Waco v. Tex. Comm'n On Envtl. Quality
...evidence of probative force and will not support a jury finding even when admitted without objection.”); Casualty Underwriters v. Rhone, 134 Tex. 50, 132 S.W.2d 97, 99 (1939) (holding that “bare conclusions” did not “amount to any evidence at all,” and that “the fact that they were admitted......
-
Mathis Equipment Co. v. Rosson
...opinion herein.10 Dallas Railway and Terminal Company v. Gossett, 156 Tex. 252, 294 S.W.2d 377, 380 (1956); Casualty Underwriters v. Rhone, 134 Tex. 50, 132 S.W.2d 97, 99 (1939). ...