Johnson v. Carolina

• Decision Date: 13 December 1911
• Citation: 72 S.E. 1057,157 N.C. 382
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CAROLINA, C. & O. R. CO. et al.

72 S.E. 1057

157 N.C. 382

JOHNSON

v.CAROLINA, C. & O. R. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 13, 1911.

1. Master and Servant (§ 88^*)—"Independent Contractor"—Definition.

An "independent contractor" is one who, in the exercise of an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, without being subject to his employer's control, except as to the results of the work.

[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 146; Dec. Dig. § 88.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3542-3543; vol. 8, p. 7686.]

2. Master and Servant (§ 88*)—Independent Contractor—Relation.

The relationship of independent contractor is not changed because the owner reserves the right to supervise the work through an engineer, architect, etc., for the purpose of seeing that it is done pursuant to the contract.

[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 146; Dec. Dig. § 88.*]

3. Master and Servant (§ 88*)—Independent Contractor—Existence of Relation.

If a workman's immediate employer was not acting in good faith under an alleged contract with defendant railroad company for doing work, but was in fact only the company's agent, such employer was not an independent contractor so that plaintiff could sue the railroad company for injuries received.

[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 146; Dec. Dig. § 88.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Burke County; Lane, Judge.

Action by Henry Johnson against the Carolina, Clinehfield & Ohio Railroad Companyand others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant railroad company appeals. Affirmed.

There was evidence tending to show that, on or about July 15, 1908, plaintiff was injured, while at work as an employe of defendant company, by reason of a defective car, being then used for hauling dirt in the construction of defendant road, and that the injury was attributable to the negligence of defendant. There was evidence tending to show that there was no negligence; that plaintiff was, at the time, an employe of Propts & Co., an independent contractor; and, further, that plaintiff had executed a receipt in full discharge for the liability. The following verdict was rendered:

"(1) Was plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant? Answer: Yes.

"(2) Did the plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to his own injury? Answer: No.

"(3) Did the plaintiff release any cause of action he had against defendant on account of such injury? Answer: No.

"(4) What injury, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: Two hundred dollars."

Judgment on verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.

Hudgins & Watson and A. Hall Johnston, for appellant.

Spainhour & Mull and S. J.Ervin, for appellee.

HOKE, J. [1] It was chiefly objected to the validity of this recovery that plaintiff was, at the time, the employe of an independent contractor (Propts & Co.), and that, on the facts in evidence, there had been no breach of duty towards plaintiff on the part of the railroad company. This doctrine of independent contractor and its effect on the rights of parties have been the subject-matter of discussion in several recent decisions of the court, as in Hopper v. Ordway, 72 S. E. 839, at the present term; Denny v. Burlington, 155 N. C. 33, 70 S. E. 1085; Beal v. Fiber Co., 154 N. C. 147, 69 S. E. 834; Thomas v. Lumber Co., 153 N. C. 351, 69 S. E. 275, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 584; Hunter v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C. 682, 68 S. E. 237, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851, 136 Am. St. Rep. 854; Young v. Lumber Co., 147 N. C. 26, 60 S. E. 654; Davis v. Summerfield, 133 N. C. 325, 45 S. E. 654, 63 L. R. A. 492; Craft v. Timber Co., 132 N. C. 151, 43 S. E. 597. In Beal v. Fiber Co., the following, as general definitions, are referred to with approval: "An independent contractor has also been defined to be one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of his work." Lurton, J., in Powell v. Construction Co., 88 Tenn. 692, 13 S. W. 691, 17 Am. St. Rep. 925, and from Smith v. Simmons, 103 Pa. 32, 49 Am. Rep 113: "Where one who contracts to perform a lawful service for another is independent of his employer in all that pertains to the execution of the work, and is subordinate only in effecting a result in accordance with the employer's design, he is an independent contractor, and in such case the' contractor alone, and not the employer, is liable for damages caused by the contractor's negligence in the execution of the work."

Hopper v. Ordway, at the present term, and Denny v. Burlington support the proposition that, when a contractor has undertaken to do a piece of work according to plans and specifications...