Khoury v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co.
Decision Date | 14 December 1928 |
Parties | KHOURY v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; C. T. Callahan, Judge.
Action by Alfred R. Khoury, a minor, against the Edison Electric Illuminating Company. Directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. On report. Judgment on the verdict.
E. R. Dewing, of Boston, for plaintiff.
K. C. Parker, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff when struck by an automobile owned and operated by one Parnell. After the trial was begun and after the opening by the plaintiff, the parties submitted the following statement of certain agreed facts:
It was further orally agreed by the parties that the plaintiff would introduce evidence which would warrant the jury in finding that at the time of the accident he was in the exercise of due care, and that the driver of the car was negligent or guilty of willful and wanton misconduct in the operation of the car.
The plaintiff then made the following offer of proof:
‘That the driver of the automobile was at the time of his accident proceeding to Watertown for the purpose of doing some work for the defendant upon the installation of certain electric wiring and fixtures; that a considerable quantity of tools, wires and fixtures were at the time being conveyed in the automobile in which he was proceeding to Watertown for the purpose stated with the knowledge and consent of the defendant;that the driver worked during regular hours and was engaged in this schedule of employment at the time of the accident; that he received for his compensation a fixed wage per week, being in the exclusive employment of the defendant.’
Thereupon the presiding judge allowed a motion for a directed verdict filed by the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted. It was agreed by the parties that, if the case should have been submitted to the jury, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, otherwise judgment was to be entered for the defendant. The case is before this court upon a report of the presiding judge.
[1][2][3] The principle of respondeat superior is not applicable unless the agreed facts warranted a finding that the relation of master and servant existed at the time the plaintiff was injured, whereby the negligent act of the servant was legally imputable to the master. The test of the relationship is the right to control. It is not necessary that there be any actual control by the alleged master to make one his servant or agent, but merely a right of the master to control. If there is no right of control there is no relationship of master and servant. If the power of control rests with the person employed, he is an independent contractor. In order that the relation of master and servant may exist, the employee must be subject to control by the employer, not only as to the result to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Savings L. Ins. Co. v. Riplinger
...a servant or agent as to one part of the undertaking and an independent contractor as to other parts. Khoury v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 265 Mass. 236, 164 N.E. 77, 60 A.L.R. 1159. An accurate definition of an independent contractor is quoted in the case of Shannon v. Western Indem......
-
Unemployment Compensation Commission of Wyoming v. Mathews
...2 S.E.2d 584. A person may be an agent as to one part of an undertaking and an independent contractor as to other parts. Khoury v. Illuminating Co. (Mass.) 164 N.E. 77; Aldrich v. Tyler Grocery Company, 89 So. 289. relationship of master and servant is not always capable of definition. Rest......
-
Harnish v. Children's Hosp. Medical Center
...professional conduct. Kapp v. Ballantine, supra 380 Mass. at 762, 402 N.E.2d 463. See generally Khoury v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co., 265 Mass. 236, 238, 164 N.E. 77 (1928). The judgment as to the defendants Mulliken and Holmes is reversed. The judgment as to defendants Gilman and Childr......
-
Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet
...instances in which the employer had the "right of control" over the specific conduct in question. See Khoury v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co., 265 Mass. 236, 238-39, 164 N.E. 77 (1928), overruled in part by Konick v. Berke, Moore Co., 355 Mass. 463, 468, 245 N.E.2d 750 (1969). According to ......