Roberts v. Fielder Salt Works
| Decision Date | 21 February 1903 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. FIELDER SALT WORKS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Van Zandt county court; Jno. W. Davidson, Judge.
Action by J. O. Roberts, by his next friend, against the Fielder Salt Works. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The appellant, a boy about 19 years of age, brought this suit by his mother, Laura Roberts, as next friend, to recover damages for personal injuries received by him by reason of the alleged negligence of appellee while in its employ. After hearing the evidence, the court instructed a verdict for the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the instruction, upon which a judgment was entered, and the plaintiff appealed.
The appellee is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and shipping of salt at Grand Saline, Tex. J. J. Williams is the general superintendent and agent of defendant company. Al. Conner was employed by said company to barrel, sack, and ship the salt manufactured by defendant, and said Conner was paid by the barrel, sack, or ton when he loaded salt in bulk. Conner employed the hands that worked under him, and paid them out of moneys furnished him for that purpose by the defendant company. Conner was employed by the superintendent, Williams, and was subject to be discharged at the will and pleasure of said Williams. Conner exercised control over the hands under him. Conner employed plaintiff. The plaintiff was directed by Conner to dig down certain banks of salt, which he was doing in a careful and prudent manner when Conner, without the knowledge of plaintiff, began to dig salt with a hoe near where plaintiff was at work. While so digging, plaintiff was struck on the right hand with the hoe by Conner, and his hand injured, whereby he lost the use of two of his fingers. The evidence shows that the injury is permanent.
T. R. Yantis and Geo. W. Scott, for appellant. Germany & Davidson, for appellee.
BOOKHOUT, J. (after stating the facts).
Appellant insists that the facts raised the issue of negligence on the part of the defendant company, and that the court erred in instructing a verdict for defendant. Conner was the superintendent of the shipping department, and its management was under his control. He employed plaintiff, and directed him as to his duties. The plaintiff was performing his duties as directed by Conner, and was doing so in a careful and prudent manner. He had no knowledge that Conner had begun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell
...Tex. 130, 145 S. W. 902; St. Louis, S. W. Ry. Co. v. McArthur, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 205, 72 S. W. 76 (writ refused); Roberts v. Fielder Salt Works (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 618; Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rodrigues, 47 Ill. 188, 95 Am. Dec. 484; Graysonia-Nashville Lbr. Co. v. Saline Developme......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Dean
...Sweeney v. Ry. Co., 84 Tex. 433, 19 S. W. 555, 31 Am. St. Rep. 71; Ry. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 418; Roberts v. Fielder Salt Works (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 618. The said assignments are therefore not well taken, nor the fifth assignment, which would have directed the jury to find......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Roth
...the relation of fellow servant, although he may have been engaged with them in prosecuting the common work. See, also, Roberts v. Salt Works (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 618. The third assignment alleges that the court submitted different negligence from that alleged. The court submitted the c......