Riggs v. Haden Co.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1993-7022.,1993-7022. |
| Parties | RIGGS v. HADEN CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In the district court of Harris county plaintiff in error, William Riggs, was awarded a judgment against defendant in error, the Haden Company, for damages on account of the death of his son, Jimmy Riggs. The boy was killed as a result of being struck by a truck driven by one Maurice Robertson. Judgment in favor of plaintiff in error against Robertson was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and no appeal is prosecuted therefrom. The judgment as against the Haden Company was by the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered, with dissent by Justice Graves. 84 S.W.(2d) 789. On account of the similarity between this case and the case of Smith Bros., Inc., v. J. R. O'Bryan (Tex.Com.App.) 94 S.W.(2d) 145, it was advanced and set for submission with that case. Under the view we have taken of the case, the only question necessary to be decided here is whether or not Maurice Robertson at the time of the accident was an employee of the Haden Company for whose acts that company was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The statement of all the controlling facts made by the Court of Civil Appeals in the majority opinion is unchallenged. As we are in accord with the opinion of the majority, it is not necessary to restate these facts in full. Briefly, it may be said that O. F. Bright had a contract with the Haden Company under which he, as owner of his own trucks, hauled sand, gravel, shell, and other materials for the Haden Company, and was paid by that company a certain sum for each load. Bright paid all expenses in connection with the trucks and their operation. He employed his own drivers, including Maurice Robertson, and paid their salaries or wages. He had complete control over them as to how long they worked and alone had authority to discharge them. The drivers were directed by Bright as to when to report to the Haden Company for work. Generally, it may be said that the extent of control over these truck drivers by the Haden Company was to designate the materials to be hauled, to whom they were to be delivered, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dortch Baking Co. v. Schoel
... ... v. Sturgeon, 227 Ala. 162, 149 ... General ... authorities touching the question of independent contractor ... are: Haden Co. v. Riggs, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d ... 789; Riggs v. Haden & Co., 127 Tex. 314, 94 S.W.2d ... 152; Brownrigg v. Allvine Dairy Co., 137 Kan. 209, ... ...
-
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Muegge
...466; Hudson v. Ernest Allen Motor Co., Tex.Civ. App., 115 S.W.2d 1167; Haden v. Riggs, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 789, 794, affirmed 127 Tex. 314, 94 S.W.2d 152; Caswell v. Maplewood Garage, 84 N.H. 241, 149 A. 746, 73 A.L.R. 433; Tullis v. Blue, 216 Ala. 577, 114 So. 185; 20 Amer.Jur. pp. 170......
-
Eagle Trucking Co. v. Texas Bitulithic Co.
...Smith Brothers, Inc. v. O'Bryan, 127 Tex. 439, 94 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Com.App.1936, opinion adopted); and Riggs v. Haden Co., 127 Tex. 314, 94 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Com.App.1936, opinion adopted); moreover, identical holdings on similar facts have been made in workmen's compensation cases: Industrial......
-
McCombs v. Stewart
...v. Denke, 128 Tex. 229, 95 S.W. 2d 370, 107 A.L.R. 409; Ochoa v. Winerich Motor Sales Co., 127 Tex. 542, 94 S. W.2d 416; Riggs v. Haden Co., 127 Tex. 314, 94 S.W.2d 152; Moore v. Roberts, Tex. Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 236, writ refused; Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693; Lone......