Montain v. City of Fargo

• Decision Date: 27 November 1917
• Docket Number: 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

166 N.W. 416

38 N.D. 432

MARY MONTAIN v. CITY OF FARGO, a Corporation

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

November 27, 1917

Rehearing denied November 27, 1917.

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, A. T. Cole, J.

Action to recover for personal injuries.

Order sustaining demurrer to complaint.

Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Pfeffer & Pfeffer, for appellant.

The written agreement between the parties created the relationship of master and servant. Comp. Laws 1913, § 6134; Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 455, 82 Am. St Rep. 366, 63 P. 721, 64 P. 106.

The test is that, if the performance of the work is controlled by the employer, the employee is a servant; but if it is controlled by the employee he is an independent contractor. Messmer v. Bell & C. Co., 133 Ky. 19, 117 S.W. 346 19 Ann. Cas. 1; Madisonville, H. & E. R. Co. v Owen, 147 Ky. 1, 143 S.W. 421; Mason & H. Co. v Highland, Ky. , 116 S.W. 320.

Where the owner retains the right to direct the manner of carrying out the details of the work, the contractor is not independent. Majors v. Connor, 162 Cal. 131, 121 P. 371; Perkins v. Blauth, 163 Cal. 782, 127 P. 50; Madisonville, H. & E. R. Co. v. Owen, 147 Ky. 1, 143 S.W. 421; Quayle v. Sewerage & Water Board, 131 La. 26, 58 So. 1021; Cunningham v. Penn Bridge Co., 131 La. 196, 59 So. 119; McCarthy v. Clark, 115 Md. 454, 81 A. 12; Beal v. Champion Fiber Co., 154 N.C. 147, 69 S.E. 834; Harmon v. Ferguson Contracting Co., 159 N.C. 22, 74 S.E. 632; Chas. T. Derr Constr. Co. v. Gelruth, 29 Okla. 538, 120 P. 253; Moore v. Koplin, Tex. Civ. App. , 135 S.W. 1033; James v. Pearson, 64 Wash. 263, 116 P. 852; Nelson v. American Cement Plaster Co., 84 Kan. 797, 115 P. 578; Johnson v. Carolina, C. & O. R. Co., 157 N.C. 382, 72 S.E. 1057; Swanson v. Schmidt-Gulack Elevator Co., 22 N.D. 563, 135 N.W. 207; Solberg v. Schlosser, 20 N.D. 307, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1111, 127 N.W. 91.

The right to control the work to be done under the contract is the most important test in determining whether the employee is a servant or an independent contractor. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U.S. 518, 33 L.Ed. 440, 10 S.Ct. 175; Sacchi v. Bayside Lumber Co., 13 Cal.App. 72, 108 P. 885; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Coneys, 28 C. C. A. 388, 51 U. S. App. 570, 82 F. 177; Campbell v. Lunsford, 83 Ala. 512, 3 So. 522, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 164; Giacomini v. Pacific Lumber Co., 5 Cal.App. 218, 89 P. 1059; Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123, 50 Am. Rep. 287; DePalma v. Weinman, 15 N. M. 68, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 423, 103 P. 782; Potter v. Seymour, 4 Bosw. 140; Goldman v. Mason, 18 N.Y.S. R. 376, 2 N.Y.S. 337; Hawke v. Brown, 28 A.D. 37, 50 N.Y.S. 1032; Baldwin v. Abraham, 171 N.Y. 677, 64 N.E. 1118; Pickens v. Diecker, 21 Ohio St. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 55; Smith v. Humphreyville, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 140, 104 S.W. 495; Kniceley v. West Virginia Midland R. Co., 64 W.Va. 278, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 370, 61 S.E. 811; Lacour v. New York, 3 Duer, 406; New Orleans M. & C. R. Co. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 21 L.Ed. 220; Jensen v. Barbour, 15 Mont. 582, 39 P. 906.

Where the work is to be done "under the direction of a street commissioner," the employer retains control and the employee is a mere servant. St. Paul v. Seitz, 3 Minn. 297, Gil. 205, 74 Am. Dec. 753.

Also where the work is directed by a "superintendent" of employees. De Palma v. Weinman, 15 N. M. 68, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 423, 103 P. 782; Cincinnati v. Stone, 5 Ohio St. 38.

A master is liable for the negligent act of his servant when the negligent act occurred while the servant was performing services within the scope of his employment and in the line of his duties while engaged in such employment. Scott v. Springfield, 81 Mo.App. 312.

The removal of garbage by a city in this state is a private or corporate function, and not a public or governmental duty. Denver v. Porter, 61 C. C. A. 168, 126 F. 288; Barney Dumping-boat Co. v. New York, 40 F. 50; Denver v. Davis, 37 Colo. 370, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1013, 119 Am. St. Rep. 293, 86 P. 1027, 11 Ann. Cas. 1013, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 498; Quill v. New York, 36 A.D. 476, 55 N.Y.S. 889, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 423; Missano v. New York, 160 N.Y. 123, 54 N.E. 744, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 652.

Negligence may be inferred from the mere fact that a team of horses runs away; or, in other words, the mere running away of a team of horses implies negligence on the part of the owner, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. Peck v. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617, 77 S.W. 736; Orcutt v. Century Bldg. Co., 201 Mo. 424, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 929, 99 S.W. 1062; Denver v. Davis, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1013, note; 34 Cyc. 1665; 29 Cyc. 591, 595; Kahn v. Burette, 42 Misc. 541, 85 N.Y.S. 1047; Griffen v. Manice, 166 N.Y. 188, 52 L.R.A. 922, 82 Am. St. Rep. 630, 59 N.E. 925, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 336; Maus v. Broderick, 51 La.Ann. 1153, 25 So. 977; Gorsuch v. Swan, 109 Tenn. 36, 97 Am. St. Rep. 836, 69 S.W. 1113, 12 Am. Neg. Rep. 632; Strup v. Edens, 22 Wis. 432; Gannon v. Wilson, 1 Sadler (Pa.) 422, 18 W. N. C. 7, 5 A. 381; Kokoll v. Brohm & B. Lumber Co., 77 N.J.L. 169, 71 A. 120; Francois v. Hanff, 77 N.J.L. 364, 71 A. 1128; Crawford v. Upper, 16 Ont. App. Rep. 440; Unger v. Forty-second Street & G. Street Ferry R. Co., 51 N.Y. 497; Hummell v. Wester, Brightly (Pa.) 133; Tolhausen v. Davies, 59 L. T. N. S. 436, 57 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 392, 52 J. P. 804; Snee v. Durkie (1904) 6 F. 42, 1 Butterworths' Dig. 67; Thane v. Douglass, 102 Tenn. 307, 52 S.W. 155; 1 Thomp. Neg. p. 389.

Spalding & Shure, for respondent.

The contract here was to do an act in itself lawful, and, it is to be presumed, in a lawful manner. It did not involve injury to anyone. It was not inherently dangerous. Emmerson v. Fay, 94 Va. 65, 26 S.E. 386; Hilliard v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 349, 63 Am. Dec. 743.

A servant is one who is employed to render personal service to his employer otherwise than in pursuit of an independent calling, and who in such service remains entirely under the control and direction of the employer, who is called his master. Comp. Laws 1913, § 6134; Cal. Civ. Code, § 2009.

An independent contractor is one who, carrying on an independent business, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, and without being subject to the control, as to the means by which the result is to be accomplished, of anyone, but only as to the results of the work. 26 Cyc. 1546; Taute v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 25 N.D. 102, 141 N.W. 134, 4 N. C. C. A. 365; Harrison v. Collins, 86 Pa. 153, 27 Am. Rep. 699; Smith v. Simmons, 103 Pa. 32, 49 Am. Rep. 113; Richmond v. Sitterding, 65 L.R.A. 455, note; Bailey v. Troy & B. R. Co., 57 Vt. 252, 52 Am. Rep. 129; Butler v. Townsend, 126 N.Y. 105, 26 N.E. 1017; Humpton v. Unterkircher, 97 Iowa 509, 66 N.W. 776, 14 Am. Neg. Cas. 595.

If the contract of employment has been reduced to writing, the question whether the person employed was an independent contractor or merely a servant is determined by the court as a matter of law. Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123, 50 Am. Rep. 287; Pioneer Fireproof Constr. Co. v. Hansen, 176 Ill. 100, 52 N.E. 17; Foster v. Chicago, 197 Ill. 264, 64 N.E. 322; Rogers v. Florence R. Co., 31 S.C. 378, 9 S.E. 1059; Emmerson v. Fay, 94 Va. 60, 26 S.E. 386; Central Coal & I. Co. v. Grider, 65 L.R.A. 508, note.

The character of the contract is tested by the existence or absence of a right of control on the employer's part. Carrico v. West Virginia, C. & P. R. Co., 39 W.Va. 86, 24 L.R.A. 50, 19 S.E. 571; Pioneer Fireproof Constr. Co. v. Hansen, 176 Ill. 100, 52 N.E. 17; Thomp. Neg. p. 909; Powell v. Virginia Constr. Co., 88 Tenn. 692, 17 Am. St. Rep. 925, 13 S.W. 691; Morgan v. Smith, 159 Mass. 570, 35 N.E. 101; Carlson v. Stocking, 91 Wis. 432, 65 N.W. 58; Blake v. Ferris, 5 N.Y. 48, 55 Am. Dec. 304; Smith v. Simmons, 103 Pa. 32, 49 Am. Rep. 113; Foster v. Wadsworth-Howland Co., 168 Ill. 514, 48 N.E. 163; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355, 68 N.W. 45, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 188; Pickens v. Diecker, 21 Ohio St. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 55; Scammon v. Chicago, 25 Ill. 424, 79 Am. Dec. 334; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N.Y. 377, 54 Am. Rep. 703, 4 N.E. 755; Hughbanks v. Boston Invest. Co., 92 Iowa 267, 60 N.W. 640; Hardy v. Shedden Co., 37 L.R.A. 33, note; Central Coal & I. Co. v. Grider, 65 L.R.A. 475, note; Uppington v. New York, 165 N.Y. 222, 53 L.R.A. 550, 59 N.E. 91, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 115; Hardaker v. Idle Dist. Council [1896] 1 Q. B. 335, 67 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 335, 74 L. T. N. S. 69, 44 Week. Rep. 323, 60 J. P. 196.

A person who hires a contractor to do certain work, and has no immediate control over the servants of the contractor, is not liable to persons injured through the negligence of one of such servants. De Forrest v. Wright, 2 Mich. 368; Riedel v. Moran Fitzsimons Co., 103 Mich. 262, 61 N.W. 509.

Clauses providing that the work shall be done under the direction of the engineer or superintendent, relating to the supervision of the work and other conditions with reference to by-laws and ordinances, do not have the effect of rendering the contractor a servant, nor do they interfere as to any particular method the contractor may employ to do the work, so long as it is done according to the contract. Central Coal & I. Co. v. Grider, 65 L.R.A. 478, note; Larson v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 110 Mo. 234, 16 L.R.A. 330, 33 Am. St. Rep. 439, 19 S.W. 416; Harrison v. Kiser, 79 Ga. 588, 4 S.E. 320; Vosbeck v. Kellogg, 78 Minn. 176, 80 N.W. 957, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 86; Callan v. Bull, 113 Cal. 593, 45 P. 1017.

"A provision in the contract, that the work is to be done to the satisfaction of the employer's representative," is not such a supervision over the work that it destroys its independent nature. Harding v. Boston, 163 Mass. 14 39 N.E. 411; Foster v. Chicago, 197 Ill. 264, 64 N.E. 322; Kelly v. New York, 11...