Puhlman v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Citation259 Pa. 393,103 A. 218
PartiesPUHLMAN et al. v. EXCELSIOR EXPRESS & STANDARD CAB CO.
Decision Date07 January 1918
103 A. 218
259 Pa. 393

PUHLMAN et al.
v.
EXCELSIOR EXPRESS & STANDARD CAB CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 7, 1918.


Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County.

Trespass for personal injury by Edmund E. Puhlman, a minor, by his next friend and father, Carl H. Puhlman, and by Carl H. Puhlman

103 A. 219

in his own right, against the Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Company. From a judgment refusing to take off a compulsory nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before MESTREZAT, POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER, and WALLING, JJ.

Rody P. Marshall and Oliver K. Eaton, both of Pittsburgh, for appellants. A. M. Thompson, of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

POTTER, J. Edmund E. Puhlman, an employe of the Duquesne Light Company, was injured through the negligence of one Joseph Elkman. Contending that the latter was at the time of the accident employed by the Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Company, and was acting within the scope of his employment, the plaintiff brought this suit against the cab company to recover from it damages for the injury which he sustained. The facts were not in dispute, and, as stated by the court below, were as follows:

"The Duquesne Light Company hired from the defendant the services of a horse, wagon, and driver to assist in its erection of poles and wires. The method of procedure was for the defendant to send each morning to the place of business of the Duquesne Light Company a man and wagon, which was to remain in their service during the day. The employes of the Duquesne Light Company rode in the wagon, and the material to be used in putting up wires and poles was carried in the wagon to wherever the Duquesne Light Company had occasion to work, and there the driver of the wagom did whatever he was directed to do in the use of the horse, unhitching it from the wagon so as to help arrange the poles, and going from place to place with the wagon as directed by the foreman of the Duquesne Light Company. The plaintiff having occasion to get a chisel, which had been brought out in the wagon, went to the wagon on which the driver was, and asked for. the chisel. The driver thereupon picked it up and threw it to the plaintiff in such a manner that it struck him on the knee and caused a severe injury."

At the trial a compulsory nonsuit was entered, upon the ground that the evidence showed that, when the accident occurred, Elkman was, for the time being, in the employ of the Duquesne Light Company, and not in that of defendant. From the refusal to take off the nonsuit plaintiff has appealed. While Elkman was in the general service of the express and cab company, yet, in the opinion of the trial judge, it clearly appeared from the evidence that he was at the time in the particular service of the light company, and was under its direction and control. The trial judge therefore followed the general rule of law stated in 26 Cyc. L. & Pr. 1285, as follows:

"Where one person lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant, for anything done in that particular employment, must be dealt with as a servant of the man to whom he is lent, although he remains the general servant of the person who lent him. * * * The test is whether, in the particular service which he is engaged to perform, he continues liable to the direction and control of his master, or becomes subject to that of the party to whom he is lent or hired."

The same rule is formulated in the opinion in Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215, 220, 29 Sup. Ct. 252, 253 (53 L. Ed. 480), as follows:

"One may be in the general service of another, and nevertheless, with respect to particular work, may be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 practice notes
  • English v. Lehigh County Authority
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 27, 1981
    ...278, 133 A. 504 (1926); Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519, 109 A. 224 (1920); Puhlman v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co., 259 Pa. 393, 103 A. 218 (1918); Walton v. Harold M. Kelly, Inc., 218 Pa.Super. 28, 269 A.2d 347 (1970); Stevens v. Publishers Agency, 170 Pa.Super. 385, 85......
  • Isaacs v. Prince & Wilds, 23476
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 15, 1923
    ...Poindexter, et al., 188 S.W. 851; Grothmann v. Hermann et al., 241 S.W. 461; Puhlman et al. v. Excelsior Express and Standard Cab Company, 103 A. 218; Badertcher v. Independent Ice Co. et al., 184 P. 181; Core et ux. v. Resha, 204 S.W. 1149; Olson et ux. v. Clark et ux., 191 P. 810; Ash v. ......
  • Corey v. Beck, 6476
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 16, 1937
    ...for the servant's conduct. (Burns v. Jackson, 53 Cal.App. 345, 200 P. 80; Puhlman et al. v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co., 259 Pa. 393, 103 A. 218, L. R. A. 1918E, 118; Brady v. Great Western Ry. Co., 8th Circuit, 114 F. 100, 57 L. R. A. 712.) GIVENS, J. Morgan, C. J., and Holden, Ai......
  • Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League Of Pittsburgh Appeals Of City Of Pittsburgh.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 7, 1946
    ...the course of his employment. 2Jimmo v. Frick, 255 Pa. 353, 356, 357, 99 A. 1005, 1006; Puhlman v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co., 259 Pa. 393, 397, 103 A. 218, 219, L.R.A.1918E, 118; Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519, 522, 109 A. 224, 225; Eckert v. Merchants' Shipbuilding C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
46 cases
  • English v. Lehigh County Authority
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 27, 1981
    ...278, 133 A. 504 (1926); Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519, 109 A. 224 (1920); Puhlman v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co., 259 Pa. 393, 103 A. 218 (1918); Walton v. Harold M. Kelly, Inc., 218 Pa.Super. 28, 269 A.2d 347 (1970); Stevens v. Publishers Agency, 170 Pa.Super. 385, 85......
  • Isaacs v. Prince & Wilds, 23476
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 15, 1923
    ...Poindexter, et al., 188 S.W. 851; Grothmann v. Hermann et al., 241 S.W. 461; Puhlman et al. v. Excelsior Express and Standard Cab Company, 103 A. 218; Badertcher v. Independent Ice Co. et al., 184 P. 181; Core et ux. v. Resha, 204 S.W. 1149; Olson et ux. v. Clark et ux., 191 P. 810; Ash v. ......
  • Corey v. Beck, 6476
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 16, 1937
    ...for the servant's conduct. (Burns v. Jackson, 53 Cal.App. 345, 200 P. 80; Puhlman et al. v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co., 259 Pa. 393, 103 A. 218, L. R. A. 1918E, 118; Brady v. Great Western Ry. Co., 8th Circuit, 114 F. 100, 57 L. R. A. 712.) GIVENS, J. Morgan, C. J., and Holden, Ai......
  • Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League Of Pittsburgh Appeals Of City Of Pittsburgh.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 7, 1946
    ...the course of his employment. 2Jimmo v. Frick, 255 Pa. 353, 356, 357, 99 A. 1005, 1006; Puhlman v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co., 259 Pa. 393, 397, 103 A. 218, 219, L.R.A.1918E, 118; Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519, 522, 109 A. 224, 225; Eckert v. Merchants' Shipbuilding C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT