Moore v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 26 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 53-56,s. 53-56 |
| Citation | 86 N.W.2d 585,350 Mich. 363 |
| Parties | Clifford MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Wesley G. PALMER and Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corporation, a corporation; Philip G. Wiederhold, Edward E. Wiederhold and Wiederhold Freight Lines, Defendants and Appellants. Glady MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Wesley G. PALMER and Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corporation, a corporation; Philip G. Wiederhold, Edward E. Wiederhold and Wiederhold Freight Lines, Defendants and Appellants. Hattie FLOWERS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Wesley G. PALMER and Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corporation, a corporation; Philip G. Wiederhold, Edward E. Wiederhold and Wiederhold Freight Lines, Defendants and Appellants. Jean MOORE, by Clifford Moore, her next friend, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Wesley G. PALMER and Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corporation, a corporation; Philip G. Wiederhold, Edward E. Wiederhold and Wiederhold Freight Lines, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for appellants Wiederhold.
John W. Babcock, Detroit, for appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
Since 1915 we have had in Michigan a law known as the owner liability law. C.L.S.1954, § 257.401 (Stat.Ann.1952 Rev. § 9.2101). Some have described it as a harsh statute. Briefly, it imposes on the owner of an automobile the liability for damages to one who has been injured by the negligence of a driver to whom the owner has entrusted his automobile. In the first case which upheld the constitutionality of this act, after referring to the automobile in the hands of a reckless driver as a 'destructive agency', this Court said:
'If the owner of such agency consents to turn it over to the control of an incompetent or reckless chauffeur he is not deprived of any legal right by holding him liable for its negligent operation when in such control and a greater degree of safety to the general public is likely to follow.' Stapleton v. Independent Brewing Co., 198 Mich. 170, 175, 164 N.W. 520, 521, L.R.A.1918A, 916.
Since Stapleton, many drivers have been entrusted with automobiles. There have been many accidents and many lawsuits. There have been many opinions of this Court.
Generally, this Court has given the statute its intended effect as described above. But in those cases (like the one currently before us) where the owner of the automobile was also the employer of its driver, some confusion has developed as to whether the Court should apply the terms of owner liability statute or the older common-law doctrine of master and servant.
The cases which we have before us require us to attempt a re-examination.
These cases arose out of a collision, May 31, 1953, between a truck tractor, driven by Wesley G. Palmer, and a Pontiac driven by appellee, Clifford Moore, and occupied also by his wife, Mrs. Gladys Moore, their daughter, Jean Moore, and Mrs. Hattie Flowers, aunt of Mrs. Moore. All of the occupants of the Pontiac were injured and all filed suits against the driver, Palmer, and Philip G. Wiederhold and Edward E. Wiederhold, doing business as Wiederhold Freight Lines. The cases were consolidated and tried before a jury which found for each of the plaintiffs in a separate amount and against all of the named defendants. No answer appears in the record for Wesley G. Palmer and he does not appeal. The Wiederholds answered, denied liability, and have appealed.
No issue is raised as to the amounts of the verdicts, nor as to contributory negligence on the part of Clifford Moore, who was the driver of the Pontiac, and no contention is made, on appeal, that Wesley G. Palmer was not guilty of negligence.
It does not seem necessary to describe in detail the accident, nor the injuries, which were serious for Moore and somewhat less for the other parties, appellees. It was a not unusual collision at an intersection on Fenton Road, about 7:00 p. m., in clear daylight, slightly raining with the streets wet and slippery. Palmer was driving about 40 miles per hour, he was on the wrong side of the road, he had just left a tavern where he had drunk several bottles of beer, and his heavy G. M. C. tractor skidded and crashed into the left front of Moore's car, practically demolishing it and causing the injuries complained of and found by the jury. Palmer was subsequently tried and convicted of felonious driving as a result of the accident.
Palmer had bought the tractor for the purpose of hauling freight for the Wiederholds and almost immediately entered into what defendants called a 'lease', dated April 8, 1953, as well as a contract of employment.
The lease is termed 'Exhibit E' and the defendant, Edward Wiederhold, testified:
'Wiederhold Freight Lines
'Elkton, Michigan
'Phone Birch Run 2957
'Lease between Wiederhold Freight Lines with offices and principal place of business at Elkton, Michigan, party of the First part and Wesley G. Palmer, party of the second part.
'Witnesseth as Follows:
'1. First party hereby engages and leases from second party for use in its service as a limited common carrier within the described equipment.
'No. 598; Make, GMC; Type, Tract; Serial, MDCR 611166; Year, '50; License, 5082CC to be used by First Party in transporting freight and merchandise.
'2. First Party agrees to pay Second Party 70% less insurance.
'3. In case the Second Party's services shall be engaged as driver of the said equipment, compensation therefor shall be paid by the First Party at a minimum rate of none. Such rate when once established shall not be changed without five days written notice. In such cases the party of the Second Part shall be deemed an employee of said First Party and shall be entitled to all rights and privileges as an employee. First Party hereby expressly assumes all duties and liabilities of an employer.
'4. This lease agreement may be cancelled by either party at any time upon fifteen days written notice. In such written notice of cancellation shall be deemed given when delivered personally or by registered mail to either party at their address appearing below. Whenever said notice of cancellation is served on either party, he shall make final settlement and payment of any sum or sums due. Said payment must be made on or before the fifteen day limitation herein referred to.
'5. It is specifically agreed and understood between the parties hereto that Second Party, in leasing and furnishing the equipment, described in this contract for operation by the First Party, shall not in any way control the use of operation of such equipment, and that the First Party shall have complete control of such equipment. It is further understood and agreed that the First Party expressly assumes all legal liabilities which may arise as though in fact said equipment was owned by the said First Party.
'6. This lease agreement is deemed to have been executed in the State of Michigan as a bonified (sic) contract, and construed in all things in accordance with the laws and decisions of that State.
'In witness whereof, First Party has caused this lease agreement to be executed by its duly authorized agent and Second Party has annexed his name this 8th day of April, 1953.
'Wiederhold Freight Lines
'S/ Wiederhold
'Party of the First Part
'elkton, Michigan
'Address
'S/ Wesley G. Palmer
'Party of the Second Part
'Birch Run, Michigan
'Address
'Witnesses:
'S/ ________
'________
On appeal there is no issue raised as to the personal liability of the defendant Palmer, nor as to the amount of damages. Palmer has not appealed, relying, we assume, on the last sentence in the fifth paragraph of the 'lease' reading, 'It is further understood and agreed that the First Party (the Wiederholds) expressly assumes all legal liabilities which may arise as though in fact said equipment was owned by the said First Party.' The Wiederholds appeal, and allege:
1. That they were entitled to an instructed verdict on the ground that the driver of the tractor was not acting in the scope of his employment or authority when the accident occurred.
2. That it was error for the court to charge that it might find appellants liable under C.L.S.1954, § 257.401 (Stat.Ann.1952 Rev. § 9.2101).
3. That it was error not to grant a mistrial where insurance was improperly injected into the case by the plaintiffs.
At the outset we hold that defendants Wiederhold must be treated as the owners of the truck which was involved in this accident. The lease provides for them to assume 'all legal liabilities which may arise as though in fact said equipment was owned by the said First Party (Wiederhold).'
These terms apparently were required by the Public Service Commission and must be held to run to the benefit of the public.
In addition, the lease was for more than 30 days and hence the lessee must in any event be held to be the 'owner' under the definition of that term in the motor vehicle code, § 37.
"Owner' means: (a) Any person, firm, association or corporation renting a motor vehicle or having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period of greater than 30 days.' C.L.S.1954, § 257.37 (Stat.Ann.1952 Rev. § 9.1837).
We believe, also, that defendants' contention that Palmer was the employee of Wiederholds on the date of this accident is borne out by the lease and the evidence contained in the record.
In essence, plaintiffs and appellees here claim that the fact that defendants Wiederhold by lease and statute must be regarded as owner makes the owner liability law applicable; and defendants appellants contend that Palmer being an employee, defendants Wiederhold may not be held unless Palmer, at the time of the accident, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Beres
...346 Mich. 357, 366, 78 N.W.2d 248.13 Four justices wrote to overrule Geib v. Slater, Supra, on other grounds in Moore v. Palmer (1957), 350 Mich. 363, 86 N.W.2d 585.14 Accord: Prosser, Law of Torts (3d ed.), pp. 258, 269.15 See Lindsay v. Acme Cement Plaster Co. (1922), 220 Mich. 367, 375, ......
-
Mosier v. Carney
...was acting in driving, despite the existence even then of the owner liability act, P.A.1915, No. 302 § 29. However, in Moore v. Palmer (1957), 350 Mich. 363, 86 N.W.2d 585, four members of the Court (and subsequently a majority, see e. g., Kiefer v. Gosso (1958), 353 Mich. 19, 90 N.W.2d 844......
-
Mull v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
...Principal among the legislative answers were the owner liability laws. Their purpose, as Mr. Justice Edwards held in Moore v Palmer, 350 Mich 363 [86 NW2d 585 (1957) ], was to extend and complement the common law. The legislative theory was simple to state and broadly applicable: An owner w......
-
Theophelis v. Lansing General Hosp.
...have adhered to this common-law rule. Geib v. Slater, 320 Mich. 316, 31 N.W.2d 65 (1948), overruled on other grounds Moore v. Palmer, 350 Mich. 363, 86 N.W.2d 585 (1957); Lincoln v. Gupta, 142 Mich.App. 615, 370 N.W.2d 312 (1985); Willis v. Total Health Care, 125 Mich.App. 612, 337 N.W.2d 2......