# Wilson v. Rowan Drilling Co.

> New Mexico Supreme Court · September 16, 1950 · 55 N.M. 81

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620853

## Case

- **Full name:** WILSON Et Al. v. ROWAN DRILLING CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 16, 1950
- **Citations:** 55 N.M. 81; 227 P.2d 365
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brice, Sadler, Lujan, Compton, McGhee, 'JJ
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620853

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that an injury incurred by a driller while transporting his crew arose out of and in the course of employment because the driller was contractually required to ensure he had a fully staffed crew when his shift commenced and throughout the shift
- noting fundamental error exception

## Opinion text

On Second Rehearing.
PER CURIAM. This cause coming on to be heard on a second motion for rehearing, Chief Justice LUJAN, Mr. Justice SADLER, Mr. Justice McGHEE and Mr. Justice COMPTON sitting, and the court having considered the briefs of counsel and being well and sufficiently advised in the premises,, presents a division of opinion as follows: Mr. Justice SADLER and Mr. Justice McGHEE remain of the same opinion expressed in their dissent from the original' opinion and think the opinion filed should' be withdrawn and the judgment appealed from reversed; Mr. Chief Justice LUJAN and Mr. Justice COMPTON think the opinion on file should stand as written, thus adhering to the views entertained by them at the time they expressed their concurrence by signing the same.
Mr. Justice McGHEE is of opinion that this opportunity should be availed of to overrule Flaska v. State, infra, holding only justices participating at original hearing may participate on rehearing and that Mr,' Justice COORS who became a member of the .Court on January 1, last, should be called in to participate in determining the present motion or, if for any reason he prefers not to participate, that a district judge should be called in to sit in his place.
Wherefore, it thus appearing that a majority of the court cannot be secured favoring the withdrawal of the opinion filed (if in fact could be secured from a'full court) and the court being without right under the decision rendered in Flaska v. State, 51 N.M. 13 , 177 P.2d 174 , to call in another justice or judge not participating in the •original decision, to participate in the consideration of this motion, the opinion heretofore filed, affirming the judgment, will stand. It is so ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620853. Public record. Not legal advice.