Runk v. Rickenbacher Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A--366,A--366 |
| Citation | 31 N.J.Super. 350,106 A.2d 554 |
| Parties | RUNK v. RICKENBACHER TRANSP. CO., Inc. . Appellate Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
H. Hurlburt Tomlin, Camden, argued the cause for the respondent-appellant (Orlando, Devine & Tomlin, Camden, attorneys; Samuel P. Orlando, Camden, of counsel).
Lawrence N. Park, Camden, argued the cause for the petitioner-respondent (Robert J. Tait Paul, Camden, attorney).
Before Judges EASTWOOD, FRANCIS and FREUND.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FREUND, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).
This appeal is from a judgment of the Camden County Court affirming an interlocutory judgment of the workmen's Compensation Division determining the controversy to be within its jurisdiction.
The petition filed by Ines R. Runk, widow of Norman W. Runk, on behalf of herself and three infant children, alleges that her husband was employed by the appellant as a truck driver and that he died on February 7, 1952, in Dayton, Ohio, as a result of inhaling carbon monoxide while sitting in the cab of a tractor-trailer awaiting the loading of the trailer. The appellant's answer denied the jurisdiction of the Division of Workmen's Compensation or that the accident happened in the course and scope of the employment.
Testimony was taken solely with respect to the issue of whether the decedent was an employee of the appellant, and, if so, whether the contract of employment was made in this State. Both lower tribunals found in the affirmative on the two questions and these concurrent findings of fact are entitled to great weight. Arrington v. Goldstein, 23 N.J.Super. 103, 92 A.2d 630 (App.Div.1952). There is ample evidence to support the conclusions below.
The decedent had been in the employ of Gerald Strauser, of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, who is in the business of long distance trucking and leases trucking equipment to transportation companies. On January 27, 1952, as the result of a telephone conversation between Strauser and a representative of the appellant, the tractor later driven by Runk was leased to the appellant. Runk was directed to drive the tractor-trailer to Philadelphia, to leave the trailer there with another trucking company, and then proceed to report to the appellant's terminal in Newark, New Jersey. The proofs establish that upon Runk's arrival in Newark, on January 28, he was employed by the appellant, and that thereafter he was continuously in its employ until his death on February 7. Runk submitted to the appellant in Newark a medical certificate of physical fitness as a driver, which was returned to him from Newark by letter dated February 4, 1952. The appellant used 'Driver's Daily Log' forms on which the decedent made daily reports from January 28 to February 6. Under date of January 30, Strauser in writing authorized the appellant to place decedent on the company payroll at $45 per week. The appellant issued two checks to Runk's order, one dated February 2 and the other February 9, each for $44.32, being his salary of $45 less 68cents for old age pension. Each check bears in print the name and Newark address of the appellant, each was drawn on a Newark bank, and each has a detachable stub entitled 'Employee's Record covering Pay Period to and including date shown below.' From January 28 to February 7 Runk was under the direction and control of the appellant and drove for it in accordance with its orders.
The appellant argues that the decedent was a general employee of Strauser, although he was towing a trailer for the appellant at the time of his death. The appellant relies upon a line of cases which hold that when one engaged in the trucking business leases equipment and hires his employee to an other for a special occasion, the relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the equipment and his servant is not terminated merely because the employee is performing service for the lessee. Rongo v. R. Waddington & Sons, 87 N.J.L. 395, 94 A. 408 (Sup.Ct.1915); Lacombe v. Cudahy Packing Co., 103 N.J.L. 651, 137 A. 538 (E. & A. 1927); Procopio v. Foss & Voight, Inc., 10 N.J.Super. 504, 77 A.2d 293 (Cty.Ct.1950); Restatement, Agency, § 227; Annotations 34 A.L.R. 768, 152 A.L.R. 816, 17 A.L.R.2d 1394.
The determination of each case depends on the particular facts. Some of the elements to be considered are the hiring, control, payment of wages and power of dismissal. According to all the adjudications, control is one of the most significant factors. Moreover, when dealing with the services of an employee lent to another, the rule as stated in Restatement, Agency, § 227, is that
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blessing v. T. Shriver & Co.
...to hire, control, direction of work, payment of wages, and power of dismissal) mentioned in Runk v. Rickenbacher Transportation Co., 31 N.J.Super. 350, 354--355, 106 A.2d 554 (App.Div.1954). Recent decisions concerned with the problem of whether an individual was an employee or an independe......
-
Hannigan v. Goldfarb
...in Wilson v. Kelleher Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra, 12 N.J. 261, 266, 96 A.2d 531 (1953); but see Runk v. Rickenbacher Trans. Co., 31 N.J.Super. 350, 355, 106 A.2d 554 (App.Div.1954). However, it is to be noted that in the Wilson case the court was dealing with I.C.C. regulations, while......
-
Marcus v. Eastern Agr. Ass'n, Inc.
...a regular weekly sum, see 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1952), § 44.33(a), p. 646; Runk v. Rickenbacher Transportation Co., 31 N.J.Super. 350, 355, 106 A.2d 554 (App.Div.1954); Fitzpatrick v. Haberman, supra (16 N.J.Super. at page 494, 85 A.2d at page 8); Wilson v. Kelleher Motor Fr......
-
Silagy v. State
...of hiring, control and power of dismissal, with control being the single most important factor. Runk v. Rickenbacher Transportation Co., 31 N.J.Super. 350, 354, 106 A.2d 554 (App.Div.1954). Control is defined as supervisory power not only over what shall be done--the desired end result, but......