Harris v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange
Texas Supreme Court
632 S.W.2d 714 (1982)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Paul Stone was fatally shot while working as the night manager at The Green House nightclub. Stone was a vice president and director of Marju Enterprises, Inc. (Marju), the entity that did business as the club. However, Stone had also been working as the club’s night manager for approximately two months to fill a vacancy left by a former club employee. As night manager, Stone performed tasks including hiring and firing staff, scheduling shifts, and overseeing club operations. Following Stone’s death, Stone’s surviving family members and his executors (plaintiffs) sought workers’-compensation benefits from Marju’s workers’-compensation insurance provider, Casualty Reciprocal Exchange (Casualty) (defendant). Casualty asserted that Stone was not a covered employee under Marju’s workers’-compensation insurance policy because Stone was one of Marju’s corporate executive officers. However, Stone’s family and executors argued that Stone was employed by Marju as both an officer and a manager and that Stone was a covered employee while working as a manager. A jury awarded benefits after finding that Stone was employed by Marju in two capacities and that Stone was performing substitute-manager duties when the shooting occurred. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that benefits were unavailable because Stone was a Marju officer. The family members and executors appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pope, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.