St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Bagwell
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, Hughes County; John Caruthers, Judge. Action by.J. B. Bagwell against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
It is claimed by counsel for plaintiff in error that the petition does not state a cause of action because it shows that the plaintiff was a mere volunteer for the work in which he was engaged at the time he received his injury.
Undér the allegations of the petition the plaintiff was engaged in defendant’s work at the request of the conductor in charge of the train, and, although it may be said that his employment was for mere temporary purposes, still, being in the defendant’s employ at the request of its servant or the conductor who was in charge of the train, an emergency existing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Haluptzok v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Johnson v. Ashland Water Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Barstow v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Marks v. Rochester Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harris v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Brownell v. MooreheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Barnsdall Refining Co. v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Kali Inla Coal Co. v. GhinelliSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- O'Neil v. VieSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.