Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Hale-Halsell Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 21, 1997No. 83187PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMMS, Justice:

Markus Marshall, plaintiff below, appeals the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Hale-Halsell Company. Marshall brought this action for damages after he ran over his own foot with a motorized lift provided by Hale-Halsell, by putting the lift in reverse gear. Hale-Halsell argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Marshall was the employee of an independent contractor, and as such, Hale-Halsell did not owe Marshall a duty to warn him of the obvious dangers associated with the use of the lift. The trial court agreed, and Marshall appealed.

T…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Grover v. Superior Welding, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
  2. Millie Vecchio, Individually and as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Mario Vecchio, Deceased v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
  3. Hatley v. MOBIL PIPE LINE COMPANYSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Martinez v. Angel Exploration, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
  2. Orduna v. Total Construction Services, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Young v. Bob Howard Automotive, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002
  4. Claborn v. Plains Cotton Cooperative Ass'nCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2009
  5. Gobble v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2013

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API