Keith v. Blanscett , 1969 Tex. App. LEXIS 2607 ( 1969 )

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Language was inadvertently used at the end of the opinion stating: “we hold that Willie Barr was an employee of Bi-Rite Auto Sales for the purposes of the Compensation Act”. This was error. We hold that the facts as presented on motion for summary judgment do not establish as a matter of law that Willie Barr was an independent contractor, and that a fact issue exists as to whether Willie Barr was an employee of Loy E. Blanscett, proprietor of the Bi-Rite Auto Sales, as the term “employee” is defined in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Article 8309, section 1, Texas Revised Civil Statutes.

With this modification, the motion for rehearing is overruled.