Howard v. Winebrenner
Decision Date | 10 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 56927,No. 1,56927,1 |
Citation | 499 S.W.2d 389 |
Parties | Harold HOWARD, Appellant, v. Lloyd WINEBRENNER, Respondent |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Albert J. Yonke, Kansas City, for appellant.
Warren D. Welliver and William A. Atkinson, Welliver, Beckett & Simon, Columbia, for respondent.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Appeal (taken prior to January 1, 1972) from order overruling plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, sustaining defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissing plaintiff's petition for $75,000 damages for personal injuries.
Plaintiff alleged: that defendant is the owner and operator of certain tractors and trailers and is in the business of hauling as a contract and common carrier; that on June 4, 1967, plaintiff was walking in an easterly direction in defendant's lot, when and where defendant, who was backing a tractor and trailer in an easterly direction, negligently caused and permitted the tractor-trailer to come into collision with plaintiff and, as a direct result, he suffered serious and permanent injuries.
Defendant, by alternate motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, alleged: that at the time of plaintiff's injury, plaintiff and defendant were subject to and operating under the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Law, Sections 287.010 to 287.800, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; that at the time of his injuries, plaintiff was an employee of defendant and his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment by defendant; that following the injury, defendant and his insurer became liable for and have paid compensation and medical benefits to plaintiff.
Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment, limited to the issue of the defense that plaintiff was an employee of defendant with his exclusive remedy in the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Both motions were submitted to the court, together with supporting affidavits, exhibits, and depositions of plaintiff, defendant, and Robert D. Scherff.
The decisive question is whether an employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant at the time of plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff states: '* * * there is little dispute on the facts and the parties agreed that * * * whether * * * plaintiff's action is barred by reason of plaintiff's coming under the Workmen's Compensation Law may be decided on the facts contained in the depositions, affidavits and exhibits.'
The undisputed facts as plaintiff states them follow:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GKN Co. v. Magness
...means and manner of the service, as distinguished from controlling the ultimate results of the service.'") (quoting Howard v. Winebrenner, 499 S.W.2d 389, 395 (Mo.1973)); Piantanida v. Bennett, 17 N.J. 291, 111 A.2d 412, 414 (1955) (In determining whether an employment relationship exists "......
-
Johnson v. Pacific Intermountain Exp. Co.
...a right to share in the profits and a duty to share in the losses as may be sustained." 423 S.W.2d at 731. See also Howard v. Winebrenner, 499 S.W.2d 389, 396 (Mo.1973). I do not believe the evidence in the record supports the majority's conclusion that Marlo was participating in a joint ve......
-
Hahn v. Monsanto Co.
..."there [was] no evidence that [the landowners] participated in or controlled the construction" (alterations added)); Howard v. Winebrenner , 499 S.W.2d 389, 396 (Mo. 1973) (truck driver's joint-venture claim against a transportation company failed as a matter of law because "there was no mu......
-
Hahn v. Monsanto Co.
...... [was] no evidence that [the landowners] participated in or. controlled the construction" (alterations added));. Howard v. Winebrenner , 499 S.W.2d 389, 396 (Mo. 1973) (truck driver's jointventure claim against a. transportation company failed as a matter ......
-
Muddied Waters: A Review of Joint Venture Jurisprudence in Missouri.
...McCrory v. Bland, 197 S.W.2d 669, 672 (Mo. 1946) (en banc)); 46 AM. JUR. 2D Joint Ventures [section] 1 (2020); Howard v. Winebrenner, 499 S.W.2d 389, 396 (Mo. (5.) See Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc. v. Bell, 454 S.W.2d 5, 14-15 (Mo. 1970); see also UNIF. P'SHIP ACT [section] 202 (amended 2013) (U......