holding that employee’s two prior felony convictions for delivery of crack cocaine did not make his participation in violent robbery and murder on employer’s premises foreseeable to employer
How later courts described this case
- holding that employee’s two prior felony convictions for delivery of crack cocaine did not make his participation in violent robbery and murder on employer’s premises foreseeable to employer
- explaining danger is foreseeable if its general character might reasonably be anticipated, if not its precise manner
- stating rule in context of criminal conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
JANE BLAND, Justice.
Appellant, Rose Barton, moved for en banc consideration. A majority of the Court voted to deny en banc consideration. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant’s motion is denied.
It is so
ORDERED.
Appellant moved for en banc consideration. See TexRApp. P. 41.2(c).
A majority of the Court voted to deny en banc consideration. See TexRApp. P. 49.7.
The en banc court consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, KEYES, ALCALA, HANKS, HIGLEY, BLAND, and SHARP.
*471 Justice JENNINGS, dissenting to the denial of en banc consideration, joined by Justices KEYES and Sharp.
Justice KEYES, dissenting to the denial of en banc consideration, joined by Justice SHARP.