Albert v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 21 September 1934 |
| Docket Number | 23542. |
| Citation | 176 S.E. 659,49 Ga.App. 636 |
| Parties | ALBERT v. HUDSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Servant of owner of truck, while hauling gravel for third person to whom owner hired truck and servant, was servant of truck owner, not of third person, if third person merely directed servant as to what gravel to haul and where and when to haul it, without other supervision or control.
Owner of truck hiring truck and servant to another but retaining supervision over servant held liable for injuries resulting from servant's negligent operation of truck.
Person injured through backing of truck, who was not fellow servant of truck driver, but might have been entitled to compensation from person to whom truck and driver had been hired, could recover damages for injuries from truck driver's employer, notwithstanding Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1920, p. 167, as amended).
Evidence held sufficient to make issue for jury of liability of owner of truck for injuries resulting from negligent operation thereof by his servant after truck owner hired truck and servant to third person.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; G. H. Howard, Judge.
Action by Lucius Albert against J. A. Hudson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Douglas Douglas & Andrews and Hewlett & Dennis, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Haas Gambrell & Gardner, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. Where the owner of an automobile truck hires it, together with his servant who operates it, to another person, to be paid for at so much an hour, for use in the hauling of gravel for the latter, and notwithstanding the work is performed under the direction and supervision of the person to whom the truck and the servant are hired and this person directs the servant as to what gravel to haul, where to haul it, and when to haul it, and this is the only supervision and control he exercises over the truck and the servant, and he has no supervision, direction, or control over the servant's mechanical operation of the truck, and has no right to discharge the servant or to put another one in his place in the operation of the truck, although he may have a right to discharge the unit consisting of the truck and the servant by discontinuing their service, the servant, in the operation of the truck, is the servant of the owner and is not the servant of the other person. The owner of the truck is engaged in hauling gravel through the servant, the operator of the truck, subject only to hauling it at the direction of the person to whom the truck and servant are hired as to what gravel to haul, where to haul it, and when to haul it. Atlanta Coach Co. v. Curtis, 42 Ga.App. 639, 157 S.E. 344; Mitchem v. Shearman Concrete Pipe Co., 45 Ga.App. 809, 165 S.E. 889; Greenberg & Bond Co. v Yarbrough, 26 Ga.App. 544, 106 S.E. 624; Babbitt v. Say, 120 Ohio St. 177, 165 N.E. 721; Antonelly v. Adam, 175 Minn. 438, 221 N.W. 716; Shepard v. Jacobs, 204 Mass. 110, 90 N.E. 392, 26 L.R.A. (N....
To continue reading
Request your trial