Peterson v. McLean Trucking Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 377,377 |
| Citation | 248 N.C. 439,103 S.E.2d 479 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Jacob PETERSON v. McLEAN TRUCKING COMPANY. |
Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., Robert L. Styers, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff appellant.
Spry, White & Hamrick, Deal, Hutchins & Minor, Winston-Salem, for defendant appellee.
Plaintiff, the appellant, states in his brief filed on this appeal that matters relating to proof of negligence and damages are not presented for review, but that 'the question is simply this: Do the admitted facts bar the plaintiff's action as a matter of law?' The answer is 'Yes'. For, basically on this question there arises, as stated by defendants appellees, the question as to 'whose employee was Brower at the time he injured plaintiff?' The admitted facts shown in the record of case on appeal respond 'CMX'.
The answers to these questions are found in the opinions of this Court in the cases of: Wood v. Miller, 226 N.C. 567, 39 S.E.2d 608; Brown v. L. H. Bottoms Truck Lines, 227 N.C. 65, 40 S.E.2d 476; Roth v. McCord, 232 N.C. 678, 62 S.E.2d 64. See also McGill v. Bison Fast Freight, 245 N.C. 469, 96 S.E.2d 438.
All these involved agreements strikingly similar to the agreement here in hand: (1) Whereby lessor-owner leased truck and drivers to lessee; (2) Provisions whereby lessee took complete control of truck for the particular trip involved; (3) Stipulation that the lessee would attach its identification mark on the truck, and (4) specifying the above with particularity.
Indeed, as stated in Wood v. Miller, supra [226 N.C. 567, 39 S.E.2d 609]: And the Court then goes on to say: 'It is generally held that the relationship of master and servant is created when the employer retains the right to control and direct the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed and what the laborer shall do as the work progresses,' citing and quoting from opinion in Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137.
In the light of these applicable principles, the admitted facts point unerringly to the conclusion that CMX, the lessee, expressly assumed direction and control of the operation of the truck in question for the duration of the term of the lease. And while it is true that McLean...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Bennett, 387
...in the work, it was the machine, more or less.' Defendants, in supplemental brief, cite and stress our decision in Peterson v. Trucking Co., 248 N.C. 439, 103 S.E.2d 479. This is in the line of decisions in which this Court has held that an interstate carrier, which exercises its franchise ......
-
DeArmon v. B. Mears Corp., 253PA84
...the lease itself or other circumstances the owner relinquishes all right to control the truck's operation. Peterson v. McLean Trucking Company, 248 N.C. 439, 103 S.E.2d 479 (1958), and cases therein Weaver v. Bennett, 259 N.C. 16, 129 S.E.2d 610 (1963), did not, as the Court of Appeals inti......
-
DeArmon v. B. Mears Corp., 8326SC186
...agreement is not in dispute and its legal effect is a matter of law for determination by the court, citing Peterson v. McLean Trucking Co., 248 N.C. 439, 103 S.E.2d 479 (1958). We note that our Supreme Court has carefully distinguished Peterson and its progeny, confining its holdings to cas......
-
State ex rel. Employment Sec. Commission v. Hennis Freight Lines, Inc.
...compensation sation from the lessee. McGill v. Bison Fast Freight, Inc., 245 N.C. 469, 96 S.E.2d 438. See also, Peterson v. McLean Trucking Co., N.C., 103 S.E.2d 479. In the decisions cited in the two preceding paragraphs, it was held that the operator (whether the owner or his employee) wh......