Phillips v. Armour and Company
| Decision Date | 12 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | 23,057 |
| Parties | FRED PHILLIPS, Appellee, v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1921.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 1; EDWARD L FISCHER, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. NEGLIGENCE--Employer Transporting Employee from Home to His Work--Injury to Employee. A packing company employed a transfer company to convey its employees to and from their work and directed and controlled the transportation. Held, that having assumed the responsibility of the transportation of its employees the company owed them the duty to provide vehicles that were reasonably safe and the obligation to see that the drivers should exercise reasonable care in operating them.
2. SAME--Relation of Master and Servant Existed--Liability of Master. As the relation of master and servant existed between the packing company and its employees, the former cannot be absolved from liability for the negligent operation of the vehicles because they were owned by another.
3. SAME -- Instructions -- Evidence -- Verdict. Questioned instructions given to the jury are held to be without error, and the verdict is found to be supported by sufficient evidence.
P. W. Croker, and W. W. Holloway, both of Kansas City, for the appellant; Harry P. Beam, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
David F. Carson, of Kansas City, for the appellee.
The plaintiff suffered an injury while being transported to his work in a conveyance provided by the defendant, and the latter appeals from an award of damages to the plaintiff.
Because of a street-car strike which obstructed transportation of the employees of the defendant to and from their homes and the packing plant, defendant employed persons having motor vehicles to transport them. On these vehicles were placed banners marked "Armour & Company." The one on which plaintiff was riding when injured was furnished to the defendant by the T. A. Powell Transfer Company and was operated by a driver furnished by that company. In collecting and transporting the employees the vehicle reached the home of plaintiff at 5:45 a. m., before daylight. It was then already crowded, and the result was that plaintiff was compelled to take a seat on the end gate of the vehicle with two other employees. On the way to the packing plant and while traveling at a high rate of speed over a rough street intersection the chain supporting the end gate broke and plaintiff was thrown to the pavement and seriously injured. He alleged that the vehicle was operated for the benefit and under the control of the defendant and that the driver while acting within the scope of his employment by the defendant negligently caused the vehicle to be overloaded and driven negligently and at a high and dangerous rate of speed over a street with ruts and holes in it, and that the end gate on which plaintiff was riding was not supported with a proper chain.
The answer and contention of the defendant was that the Powell Transfer Company was an independent contractor and that its failure to exercise ordinary care was not the negligence of defendant. The jury found in effect that the driver of the vehicle was the employee of the defendant, and that while the defendant did not give the driver any instructions as to the care to be exercised in the traffic it should have done so.
There was manifest negligence in the transportation of the plaintiff to his work, and the question which divides the parties is, What was the duty and obligation of the defendant towards him? Can the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dobson v. Baxter Chat Co.
...to end the employment was emphasized. See, also, McKinstry v. Coal Co., 116 Kan. 192, 225 P. 743, 38 A.L.R. 837, also Phillips v. Armour & Co., 108 Kan. 596, 196 P. 245. We have concluded that the evidence in this established that James White was the employe of the Baxter Chat Company. We n......
-
Burroughs v. Michel
... ... here. The appellee seeks to support the trial court's ... ruling with Phillips v. Armour & Co., 108 Kan. 596, ... 196 P. 245, where the fellow-servant doctrine was not ... lved, the decision turning on whether the transfer ... company transporting employees was an independent contractor ... He also relies on Hartman v. Orcutt, 139 ... ...
-
Ruggles v. Smith
...and other employees, the defendants owed them the duty to see that they were carefully and properly transported. Phillips v. Armour & Co., 108 Kan. 596, 196 P. 245; Hartman v. Orcutt, 139 Kan. 785, 33 P.2d Defendants next contend the petition shows the plaintiff guilty of contributory negli......
-
Nordgren v. The Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
... ... reasonably safe and the obligation to see that the drivers ... should exercise reasonable care in operating them." ( ... Phillips v. Armour & Co., 108 Kan. 596, 196 P ... 245, syl. P 1, 196 P. 245.) ... In the ... light of all the evidence and the pleadings in this ... ...