Charles v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 07 March 1922 |
| Citation | 233 N.Y. 127,135 N.E. 199 |
| Parties | CHARLES v. BARRETT. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Frank P. Charles, as administrator of the estate of Bernard Charles, deceased, against William M. Barrett, as president of the Adams Express Company, Inc. From judgment of the Appellate Division (197 App. Div. 584,190 N. Y. Supp. 137) reversing a judgment for plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and directing dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Thomas J. O'Neill and Leonard F. Fish, both of New York City, for appellant.
Alfred W. Meldon and Joseph Force Crater, both of New York City, for respondent.
One Steinhauser was in the trucking business. He supplied the Adams Express Company, the defendant, with a motor van and a chauffeur at the rate of $2 an hour. The defendant did the work of loading at its station and unloading at the railroad terminal. It sealed the van at the point of departure and unsealed at the point of destination. Between departure and destination the truck remained without interference or supervision in charge of the chauffeur. While so engaged, it struck and killed the plaintiff's son. Negligence is not disputed. The question is whether the defendant shall answer for the wrong. The trial judge ruled as a matter of law that it must. The Appellate Division, holding the contrary, dismissed the complaint.
We think that truck and driver were in the service of the general employer. There was no such change of masters as would relieve Steinhauser of liability if the driver of the van had broken the seals and stolen the contents. By the same token, there was no such change as to relieve of liability for other torts committed in the conduct of the enterprise. Where to go and when might be determined for the driver by the commands of the defendant. The duty of going carefully, for the safety of the van as well as for that of wayfarers, remained a duty to the master at whose hands he had received possession. Neither the contract nor its performance shows a change of control so radical as to disturb that duty or its incidence. The plaintiff refers to precedents which may not unreasonably be interpreted as pointing in a different direction. Minute analysis will show that distinguishing features are not lacking. Thus in Hartell v. T. H. Simonson & Son Co., 218 N. Y. 345, 113 N. E. 255, the special employer used his own truck. The submission to a new ‘sovereign’ was more intimate and general. Driscoll v. Towle, 181 Mass. 416, 418, 63 N. E. 922. We do not say...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nepstad v. Lambert
...coal company would have been liable.13 Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480. See, also, Charles v. Barrett, 233 N.Y. 127, 135 N.E. 199.14 See, Spodick v. Nash Motors Co., 203 Wis. 211, 232 N.W. 870; Devaney v. Lawler Corp., 101 Mont. 579, 56 P.2d 746.15 Sta......
-
McFarland v. Dixie Machinery & Equipment Co.
... ... 252, 53 L.Ed. 480; Braxton v ... Mendelson (N. Y.), 135 N.E. 198.] Justice Cardoza ... undertook to state a formula for this rule in Charles v ... Barrett (N. Y.), 135 N.E. 199; and this test was ... followed in a recent CWA case, Devaney v. Lawler Corp ... (Mont.), 56 P.2d 746, l ... ...
-
Williams v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
...4; sec. 220(1), comment c; Ware v. Cia de Navegacion Andes, S.A., 180 F.Supp. 939, 942-944 (E.D.Va.1960); Charles v. Barrett, 233 N.Y. 127, 135 N.E. 199 (1922). What it may well mean is that Wall had become Spencer's servant too. See American Law Institute, Restatement of Agency 2d, secs. 2......
-
Couch v. United States
...employer. See Belluomini, 64 F.3d at 302;A.J. Johnson Paving, 45 Ill.Dec. 126, 412 N.E.2d at 480; cf. Charles v. Barrett, 233 N.Y. 127, 135 N.E. 199, 200 (1922) (Cardozo, J.) (“Neither the contract nor its performance shows a change of control so radical as to disturb that duty or its incid......
-
John P. Figura, You're in the Army Now: Borrowed Servants, Dual Servants, and Torts Committed by Contractors' Employees in the Theaters of U.s. Military Operations
...Slain and his co-authors observe, id., some courts have emphasized broad control over spot control, most notably in Charles v. Barrett, 135 N.E. 199, 199 (N.Y. App. 1922) (Cardozo, J.) (stating that the doctrine would not apply unless an employee renounced his or her allegiance to the gener......