Clark v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 737,737
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Cora D. CLARK, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry Clark, Deceased, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PILOT FREIGHT CARRIERS, Inc. and Leo W. Ford, Original Defendants, Appellants, and Burlington Engineering Company, Inc., Additional Defendant Appellee.

Page 252

102 S.E.2d 252

247 N.C. 705

Cora D. CLARK, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry Clark, Deceased, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PILOT FREIGHT CARRIERS, Inc. and Leo W. Ford, Original

Defendants, Appellants, and Burlington Engineering

Company, Inc., Additional Defendant Appellee.

No. 737

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 26, 1958

Sanders & Holt, Burlington, Long, Ridge, Harris & Walker, Graham, for plaintiff appellee.

Cooper, Latham & Cooper, Robert E. Long, Burlington, for original defendant appellants.

Sapp & Sapp, Greensboro, for additional defendant appellee.

DENNY, Justice.

The additional defendant filed a motion in this Court to dismiss the appeal of the original defendants on the ground that the appellants have failed to group and separately number the exceptions relied upon by them, as required by Rule 19, Section 3 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 554 et seq.

In considering whether or not the court below committed error in sustaining plaintiff's demurrer and in striking allegations in the pleadings, and in vacating an ex parte order making an additional party defendant, when such matters are brought before us pursuant to petition for writ of certiorari, as provided in Rule 4(a) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 242 N.C. 766, G.S.1957 Cumulative Supplement, page 21, and exceptions are not set out as required by Rule 19, Section 3 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, supra, G.S.Appendix I, page 171, we will treat the record filed pursuant to the terms of the allowed writ as an exception to the order or orders which petitioner seeks to have reviewed. Consequently, we hold that nothing is presented for decision on the record before us except the question as to whether the pleadings and admitted facts on which the trial judge ruled support the orders entered, and whether or not any error of law appears on the face of the record. Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E.2d 118; Surratt v. Chas. E. Lambeth Insurance Agency, 244 N.C. 121, 93 S.E. id 72; Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E.2d 223; Bond v. Bond, 235 N.C. 754, 71 S.E.2d 53. The motion to dismiss is denied.

The determinative question on this appeal is whether or not the court below committed error in allowing the motion of the additional defendant to strike Pilot's cross-action and to vacate the ex parte order making Burlington an additional party defendant. If the ruling on this motion is upheld, we do not understand that the original defendants seriously challenge the ruling on the plaintiff's motion to strike certain pleadings.

There being no allegation in the pleadings tending to show any contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the original defendants, the doctrine of assumption of risk is not available as a defense. Gilreath v. Silverman, 245 N.C. 51, 95 S.E.2d 107; Goode v. Barton, 238 N.C. 492, 78 S.E.2d 398; Broughton v. Standard Oil Co., 201 N.C. 282, 159 S.E. 321. Therefore, the demurrer to the plea of assumption of risk as a bar to plaintiff's right of recovery was properly sustained.

The appealing defendants admit that since Burlington and the plaintiff's intestate were subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, Pilot is not entitled to have Burlington retained as an additional party defendant under the provisions of G.S. § 1-240 and the decisions of this Court. Lovette v. Lloyd, 236 N.C. 663, 73 S.E.2d 886; Hunsucker v. High Point Bending & Chair Co., 237 N.C. 559, 75 S.E.2d 768; Johnson v. Catlett, 246 N.C. 341, 98 S.E.2d 458, and cited cases. They likewise admit that Pilot is not entitled to relief against Burlington under the doctrine of primary and secondary liability. Hannah v. House, N.C., 101 S.E.2d 357; Wright's Clothing Store v. Ellis Stone & Co., 233 N.C. 126, 63 S.E.2d 118.

The appellants apparently are relying solely on their contention that, since the character of the shipment by Burlington was such that the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission required Burlington to load the unit of machinery on the tractor-trailer of Pilot, the common carrier, there is an implied obligation on the part of Burlington to indemnify Pilot against any damages growing out of the injury and death of plaintiff's intestate, an employee of Burlington, which occurred while the shipment of Burlington was being loaded on Pilot's tractor-trailer or immediately after the work of loading was completed.

We do not construe the pleadings to allege any contract between Burlinton and Pilot other than an agreement that shipments by Burlington would be accepted by Pilot, subject to classifications and tariffs in effect at the time Burlington shipments were tendered to Pilot.

Conceding, but not deciding, that an implied contract existed as alleged by Pilot, it was discretionary with the trial judge as to whether or not Pilot would be permitted to litigate its claim under the implied contract of indemnity against Burlington in this action. Burlington is certainly not a necessary party to a complete determination of the matters alleged in the complaint as between the plaintiff and the original defendants. Moreover, a carrier operating under a license, or franchise, granted by public authority and subject to certain obligations or liabilities imposed by such authority, is responsible for the operation of its truscks pursuant to such franchise insofar as third parties are concerned. 57 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 591, page 368; Newsome v. Surratt, 237 N.C. 297, 74 S.E. 2d 732; Jocie Motor Lines v. Johnson, 231 N.C. 367, 57 S.E.2d 388; Brown v. Bottoms Truck Lines, 227 N.C. 299, 42 S.E.2d 71.

In the case of Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238...