Parkhill Truck Co. v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 28 February 1961
• Docket Number: No. 38966,38966
• Parties: 42 Lab.Cas. P 50,171, 1961 OK 42 PARKHILL TRUCK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. Eugene REYNOLDS, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1064

359 P.2d 1064

42 Lab.Cas. P 50,171, 1961 OK 42

PARKHILL TRUCK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. Eugene REYNOLDS, Defendant in Error.

No. 38966.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 28, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A contract, express or implied, forms the basis of and is generally essential to recovery for work and labor performed.

2. An operator, procured by lessor of tractor-trailer with knowledge, consent and approval of lessee thereof, may recover from the latter for his work and labor, when the services for which remuneration is sought were rendered in reliance upon a specific antecedent understanding with and promise of lessee to pay the operator, as his wages, a fixed percentage of gross receipts realized from freight transported by operator upon the leased vehicle, and the amount claimed admittedly represents the stipulated portion of such gross receipts collected by lessee.

3. In passing upon the validity of a statute, it is the duty of this Court to adopt, whenever fairly possible, a construction which will avoid grave doubts or uncertainty as to its constitutionality.

4. The provisions of 40 O.S.Supp.1955 § 165.9(b) declaring that in an action to recover unpaid wages the trial court 'may, in addition to any judgment awarded' to a party plaintiff or defendant, allow a reasonable attorney's fee, are not unconstitutional as denying defendant equal protection of the law.

5. Although in determining a reasonable attorney's fee to be awarded the prevailing party in an action for unpaid wages, the trial court should consider the quantum of work necessarily performed by counsel, and the amount of time required therefor, the difficulties encountered in course of litigation and the complexity of questions involved, the fee must, to some extent, be based upon the amount of recovery.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas within and for Tulsa County; C. E. Allen, Judge.

Action by C. Eugene Reynolds against Parkhill Truck Company, a corporation, to recover unpaid wages. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed as modified.

Doerner, Stuart, Moreland, Campbell & Saunders, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

O. O. Leach, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BERRY, Justice.

Parkhill Truck Company, defendant below, seeks corrective relief from a judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, C. Eugene Reynolds. The principal question presented for our determination is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that defendant, as a lessee of a tractor-trailer, was legally liable for unpaid wages claimed by plaintiff for labor performed in operating the leased vehicle. Defendant urges that its demurrer to the evidence and motion for directed verdict should have been sustained, and asserts that plaintiff rendered his services while in the employ and under exclusive control of lessor who, as an independent contractor, was solely responsible for his compensation.

The evidence discloses little or no dispute as to the material facts. At the suggestion of defendant's dispatcher, plaintiff, a truck driver, offered his services to one Noah Orr. The latter was the owner of a tractor-trailer which was then being leased by the defendant, Parkhill. After a very brief discussion concerning plaintiff's qualifications and experience, both men proceeded to defendant's office in Tulsa for a conference with defendant. Prior to the conference there was no understanding between plaintiff and Orr as to the manner in which plaintiff was to render his services, the amount of compensation he would receive, or by whom he would be paid. At the conference defendant's dispatcher 'approved' plaintiff on Orr's request as a driver of the leased vehicle and issued to him 'an employment card'. The dispatcher informed plaintiff that Parkhill would pay him in wages an amount equal to 20% of 72.5% of 'gross revenue' realized from freight hauled on the leased vehicle. Apart from this remuneration, the dispatcher explained, plaintiff would receive money to buy gasoline, oil and parts and to pay for repairs, meals and lodging. Plaintiff was to take orders from the dispatcher and report daily by telephone for instructions. The authority on the part of the dispatcher to make the outlined statements is not disputed.

Under a written lease between Orr and Parkhill the former was entitled to 72.5% of 'gross revenue earnings' on his equipment and was to defray all expenses incident to its operation. The latter was vested with the exclusive control, possession and management of the tractor-trailer which, while driven by plaintiff, bore Parkhill's insignia and markings. It was Parkhill's duty to compensate the driver for his services and withhold taxes from the wages so paid. Parkhill also provided the driver with coverage under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The mode of direction and supervision of plaintiff's work was identical to that exercised over drivers of Parkhill's own equipment.

It was Parkhill's voluntary practice to provide all expenses incident to the operation of leased equipment and charge the aggregate amount so advanced against credits accumulating to the lessor's account from his share of gross receipts. Orr's truck was in a run-down condition. It required constant expensive repairs. At the beginning of August, 1958, the credits were completely exhausted and Orr became indebted to Parkhill for about $558. Plaintiff drove the truck from June 30, 1958, to August 8, 1958. On the latter date Parkhill declined to advance any additional sums for repair of Orr's vehicle. Unable to secure funds necessary to place the tractor in an operable condition, plaintiff abandoned the disabled equipment near Memphis, Tennessee, after notifying Parkhill's dispatcher of its whereabouts.

It is undisputed that during the period of time plaintiff operated the vehicle the share of 'gross revenue' which constituted his wages amounted to $242.48. Of this sum Parkhill paid him $38.46 (less taxes withheld) by check dated July 15, 1958, but refused to remit the balance, which, plaintiff was told, would be retained to 'reduce' the debit on Orr's account. After the close of 1958, plaintiff received a withholding statement from Parkhill showing the sum of $242.48 as the 'total wages paid before payroll deductions'. This action was instituted to recover the balance of $204.02.

In passing upon a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must adopt that view of the proof adduced which is most favorable to the plaintiff. Kaiser v. Fadem, Okl., 280 P.2d 728. Measured by this test, the outlined evidence amply supports the inference that plaintiff rendered the services in reliance upon a specific antecedent understanding with, and an express promise of, Parkhill to pay him as wages the stipulated percentage of gross receipts realized in the operation of the leased truck.

A contract, express or implied, forms the basis of, and is generally essential to, recover for work and labor performed. Even in the absence of an implied agreement, the law will raise an implied contract to pay for services rendered when they were...