Jones v. Southern Pac. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Jones v. Southern Pac. Co.

144 F. 973, 75 C.C.A. 602, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3926

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1906

DocketNo. 1,535

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. 973 (Jones v. Southern Pac. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Southern Pac. Co., 144 F. 973, 75 C.C.A. 602, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3926 (5th Cir. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Hale v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, 120 Fed. 735, 57 C. C. A. 149, this court said that:

“In the Supremo Court of the state of Louisiana, the liability of an employer to an employe for damages resulting from negligence of a co-employe or fellow servant is considered a question of general law and not controlled by any express statute.”

We have been cited to no decisions of the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana that change our views in this respect. The most favorable construction to be given to the latest decisions of that court is [974]*974that it holds that the common-law doctrine in regard to the liability of employers for the negligence of fellow 'servants, commonly called the “fellow-servant doctrine,” prevails in Louisiana in a modified form. See Parker v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. (La.) 39 South. 445; Fuller v. Tremont Lumber Co., 114 La. 266, 271, 38 South. 164; Weaver v. W. L. Goulden Logging Co. (very recently decided, not yet officially reported) 40 South. 798. And this we understand means that the common-law i fellow-servant doctrine prevails in Louisiana, as construed from time to time by the Supreme Court of the state.

In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 13 Sup. Ct. 914, 37 L. Ed. 772, is was held that:

“Who are fellow servants in a common employment, as affecting the master’s liability for injury of one through the negligence of another, is not a question of local law to be settled by the decisions of the highest court of the state in which a cause of action arises, but one of general law to be determined by a reference to all- the authorities and the considerations of the principles underlying the relations of master and servant.”

The Baugh Case has been approved and followed in a long line of cases, federal and state. See 12 Rose Notes U. S. Reports, 399.

In our opinion, it follows that the applicability of the fellow-servant doctrine to the facts stated in the appellant’s petition is a question of general law. The learned trial judge so considered it, and his reasons for judgment found in the transcript are cogent and satisfactory.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In Hale v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, 120 Fed. 735, 57 C. C. A. 149, this court said that:

“In the Supremo Court of the state of Louisiana, the liability of an employer to an employe for damages resulting from negligence of a co-employe or fellow servant is considered a question of general law and not controlled by any express statute.”

We have been cited to no decisions of the Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana that change our views in this respect. The most favorable construction to be given to the latest decisions of that court is [974]*974that it holds that the common-law doctrine in regard to the liability of employers for the negligence of fellow 'servants, commonly called the “fellow-servant doctrine,” prevails in Louisiana in a modified form. See Parker v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. (La.) 39 South. 445; Fuller v. Tremont Lumber Co., 114 La. 266, 271, 38 South. 164; Weaver v. W. L. Goulden Logging Co. (very recently decided, not yet officially reported) 40 South. 798. And this we understand means that the common-law i fellow-servant doctrine prevails in Louisiana, as construed from time to time by the Supreme Court of the state.

In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 13 Sup. Ct. 914, 37 L. Ed. 772, is was held that:

“Who are fellow servants in a common employment, as affecting the master’s liability for injury of one through the negligence of another, is not a question of local law to be settled by the decisions of the highest court of the state in which a cause of action arises, but one of general law to be determined by a reference to all- the authorities and the considerations of the principles underlying the relations of master and servant.”

The Baugh Case has been approved and followed in a long line of cases, federal and state. See 12 Rose Notes U. S. Reports, 399.

In our opinion, it follows that the applicability of the fellow-servant doctrine to the facts stated in the appellant’s petition is a question of general law. The learned trial judge so considered it, and his reasons for judgment found in the transcript are cogent and satisfactory.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. 973, 75 C.C.A. 602, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-southern-pac-co-ca5-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack