Cooper v. Interstate Motor Freight Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 91.,91. |
| Citation | 249 N.W. 457,264 Mich. 131 |
| Parties | COOPER v. INTERSTATE MOTOR FREIGHT CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Muskegon County; John Vanderwerp, Judge.
Action by Emma A. Cooper, administratrix of the estate of Robert Cooper, against the Interstate Motor Freight Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Alexis J. Rogoski, of Muskegon, for appellant.
Haryy C. Milligan and Milton L. Warren, both of Detroit, for appellee.
Defendant, Interstate Motor Freight Company, a Michigan corporation, transports freight by motortrucks to various points in Michigan and nearby states. It sold a motortruck on contract to one Joseph Cesiel, and, coincident thereto, gave him a ‘hauling contract’ for a term of eighteen months, some of the important provisions of which were as follows: Cesiel agreed to transport freight for defendant as a contractor and not as an employee. He was to haul and distribute freight to all points designated by defendant by motortruck and trailer, to be equipped with tarpaulins large enough to protect loads from the elements. He was to insure the truck against loss by fire, theft, or collision, and to carry public liability, property damage, and conpensation insurance. He was to use the truck exclusively in the service of defendant on penalty of cancellation of the contract, and to make all C.O.D. collections and return them promptly to defendant. Defendant agreed to insure the freight loads, charging the cost against Cesiel up to 1 1/2 per cent. of the pay load. It also agreed to furnish suitable facilities for the proper handling of freight at its terminals. Cesiel was to maintain schedules, give proper and efficient service, and deliver and haul freight of defendant in accordance with the company's methods of handling. Cesiel was to receive 70 per cent. of the actual freight charges indicated on script sheets received by him, settlements to be made twice a month. Defendant further agreed to furnish Cesiel all the tonnage possible, with a minimum of two round trips per week. No specific tonnage was otherwise guaranteed. It was further provided that any violations of the rules and regulations of defendant or of the federal laws, together tending to affect the interest, directly or indirectly, of defendant, would operate to void the contract forthwith. The contract was drafted entirely by defendant.
Joseph Cesiel was a farmer living in Romeo, Mich., and did not drive the truck at any time or have anything further to do with the hauling contract after signing it. He entered into this agreement solely for the purpose of giving employment to his two sons Edward and Henry, who looked after the operation of the truck and the hauling of freight for defendant. Edward did the driving and received from defendant an identification card as follows:
‘This certifies that the above named operator is in good standing of the Interstate Motor Freight Corporation of Detroit, Michigan, recognizing all the rules, laws and regulations of the Corporation as well as Public Safety.
‘This card is for identification purposes and is not to be used for obtaining credit.
‘Interstate Motor Freight Corporation, by Geo. E. Watts, Safety Engineer.
‘Edward Cesiel,
‘Signature of Operator.
‘Signed: Edward Cesiel.'
It will be noted that, under the terms of the card, Edward was authorized to operate the truck and his brother Henry forbidden to operate it on penalty of revocation of the contract. The card was to be turned in when Edward left defendant's ‘employ.'
On March 24, 1931, while the contract was in force, an accident occurred near Williamston, Mich. The truck, driven by Edward Cesiel, while transporting a load of freight from Grand Rapids to Detroit, collided with a car driven by Robert Cooper, who sustained severe injuries from which he died a week later. Emma A. Cooper, as administratrix of his estate, brought suit against the Interstate Motor Freight Company. The jury rendered a verdict of $25,000 against defendant, and it appeals from the judgment thereon.
It is unnecessary to discuss the details of the accident. The testimony sustains a verdict based on a finding that decedent was free from contributory negligence and that his death resulted from the negligence of the driver of the truck. A number of questions of law raised in the lower court are again presented on appeal, however.
The important question is whether Edward Cesiel, the driver, was the agent of Joseph Cesiel, and the latter was an independent contractor, or whether the relationship of master and servant existed between defendant and the Cesiels. This question has been before the court on many occasions. The great variety of fact situations presented prevents the application of a set rule, but the presence of certain facts, although not conclusive by any means, tend to indicate the nature of the relationship. The general test in each case is whether defendant retained the right of control over means employed in performing the services contracted, as distinguished from the result. Defendant asserts that the truck did not belong to it; that it did not hire the driver or pay him; that the contract was for a long term and not terminable at the will of employer, as is usual in the master-servant relationship; that the contract distinctly states that Joseph Cesiel is an independent contractor and liable for the negligent operation of the truck; that the compensation on a percentage basis is more consistent with an independent contractor relationship than it is with a master and servant arrangement.
The testimony, however, shows that, except for the fact that the truck was purchased, and the contract entered into in his name, Juseph Cesiel had absolutely nothing to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sliter v. Cobb, Docket No. 10537
...different from that of the ordinary salesman traveling about and selling the goods of his employer.' 3. In Cooper v. Interstate Motor Freight Co. (1933), 264 Mich. 131, 249 N.W. 457, the defendant freight company, like the defendant newspaper company in Gall, sold a motor truck to a person ......
-
Laughlin v. Mich. Motor Freight Lines
...also, Hanisko v. Fitzpatrick Bros., 232 Mich. 593, 595, 206 N.W. 322, and cases cited. The jury here as in Cooper v. Interstate Motor Freight Co., 264 Mich. 131, 249 N.W. 457, 458, and Hazard v. Great Central Transport Corp., 270 Mich. 60, 258 N.W. 210, determined that the proofs establishe......
-
Sliter v. Cobb
...raised in this case. See Eber v. Bauer, 252 Mich. 571, 233 N.W. 419 (1930); Marchand v. Russell, Supra; Cooper v. Interstate Motor Freight Co., 264 Mich. 131, 249 N.W. 457 (1933); Lewis v. Summers, 295 Mich. 20, 294 N.W. 82 (1940); Brinker v. Koenig Coal & Supply Co., 312 Mich. 534, 20 N.W.......
-
Irwin v. Williamson Candy Co.
...for a failure to exercise due care, if there was no other question to be determined in the case. See, also, Cooper v. Interstate Motor Freight Co., 264 Mich. 131, 249 N. W. 457. The question of whether Mills was an independent contractor is not raised by the pleadings. The court did not ren......