Rutland v. Sikes

• Decision Date: 28 December 1962
• Docket Number: No. 8686.,8686.
• Citation: 311 F.2d 538
• Parties: Thomas C. RUTLAND, as Administrator of the Estate of Glenn Rubin Rutland, deceased, Appellee, v. W. R. SIKES, Sr., and W. R. Sikes, Jr., Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

311 F.2d 538 (1962)

Thomas C. RUTLAND, as Administrator of the Estate of Glenn Rubin Rutland, deceased, Appellee, v. W. R. SIKES, Sr., and W. R. Sikes, Jr., Appellants.

No. 8686.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 8, 1962.

Decided December 28, 1962.

William H. Duncan, West Columbia, S. C., and J. Reese Daniel, Columbia, S. C., for appellants.

Marshall B. Williams, Orangeburg, S. C. (Lofton M. Fanning and W. T. Klapman, Orangeburg, S. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.

HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge.

The defendants in this action for wrongful death appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff. They question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that they are responsible as masters for the acts of the driver of their truck and the further finding that the negligence of the driver of their truck was the proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff's decedent.

We think the evidence supports the findings of the District Judge, before whom the case was tried without a jury.

This action arose out of a head-on collision between two dump trucks, each of which was engaged in work in connection with the construction of a new highway in South Carolina. The driver of each truck was killed. Since there were no eyewitnesses, the findings of the District Judge as to the cause of the accident rest upon circumstantial evidence.

The circumstantial evidence, however, is persuasive and fully warrants the inferences drawn by the District Court.

The highway under construction was a part of the Interstate Highway System. In the area in question, the northbound lanes had been fully graded and a sandclay base defining the roadbed was in place and usable for vehicular traffic engaged in construction activities. Braxton, a subcontractor, was engaged at the time in moving sand, clay or earth in dump trucks over the bed of the northbound lanes for a distance of some miles between the place where the materials were available and the point at which they were required in connection with extension of the work. For this purpose, he had engaged others to supply trucks and drivers to him. Among others, the defendants supplied several such trucks with drivers for this purpose, and the younger Mr. Sikes also, at times, served as one of the drivers.

For their services, the defendants were compensated on the basis of a fixed price per yard of earth moved. The younger Mr. Sikes was frequently, but not always, on the job, and, as noted, he sometimes drove one of the defendants' trucks. The drivers were employed by the defendants, and were subject to supervision and discharge by them. When Mr. Sikes, Jr. was not on the job, Braxton would issue instructions to the drivers as to what materials they should pick up and where it should be placed, but such general instructions are far from the specific assumption of immediate control which is required to bring into play the borrowed servant doctrine and to relieve the general employer from responsibility for the acts of his servant.

It also appears that the drivers engaged in driving the defendants' trucks were carried on Braxton's payrolls, but the testimony discloses that this was done solely for the purpose of enabling Braxton to certify that the drivers had been paid the minimum wages required by the federal statutes. Such disbursements by Braxton were...