Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employers owe no duty to warn employees of hazards that are “commonly known or already appreciated” by employee
• holding that “because the risk associated with driving while fatigued is common knowledge . . . no duty to train employees about those risks”
• holding that “because [the employer] took no affirmative action as a result of any perceived employee fatigue or incapacity, . . . [it] owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs in this case”
• holding that existence of duty is question of law for court to decide
• holding that existence of duty is question of law for court to decide
• observing that the mere foreseeability of an injury is not sufficient to justify the creation of a new duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).