Legal Opinion

Jolly v. Smith

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 18, 1933No. 4-3259PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Thomas v. Magnolia Petroleum CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  2. Haraway v. ManceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lopez v. WaldrumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
  2. Lopez v. Waldrum EstateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
  3. Earl v. Mosler Safe Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
  4. Travelers' Indemnity Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
  5. Hill v. HardySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API