Jolly v. Smith
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). The principal contention of appellant for reversal is that Newton Gr. Smith was a felloAv-servant Avith James Surman, the driver of the delivery truck, and thereby assumed the risk of his negligence. A number of cases are called to our attention in support of this contention. We cannot agree that any case cited is decisive of the question here presented. The felloAY-servant doctrine, and the doctrine of vice-principal, arq wholly dependent upon the facts and circumstances in each particular case. We understand the fellow-servant doctrine, to be: “…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thomas v. Magnolia Petroleum CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Haraway v. ManceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lopez v. WaldrumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- Lopez v. Waldrum EstateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- Earl v. Mosler Safe Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
- Travelers' Indemnity Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Hill v. HardySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941