Sullivan v. General Electric Company, 12291.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 12291.,12291. |
| Citation | 226 F.2d 290 |
| Parties | Morris G. SULLIVAN, Administrator of the Estates of Edward John Kowals, deceased, and Harry Clayton Bowers, deceased, Appellants, v. The GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Aircraft Propulsion Project Division, General Electric Realty Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Walter A. Kelley, Cincinnati, Ohio (Kelley & Sullivan, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
Leo J. Brumleve, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellees.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
On April 2, 1952, while unloading steel beams from a gondola freight car on property of General Electric Company at Evendale, near Cincinnati, Ohio, the decedents were killed by a high voltage electric current, due to contact or proximity between the crane they were using and the wires. Another ironworker by the name of Schwarz was seriously injured. The work was being done by the Duffy Construction Corporation which had been employed by the General Electric Company on construction work at Evendale, under contract with it. The supervision of the construction job for the Electric Company was under the general supervision of the General Electric Realty Corporation, an affiliate or subsidiary of the Electric Company. All three men were employees of Duffy which furnished the crane and other unloading tools. The decedents were covered by Workmen's Compensation, which Duffy paid for, and the administrator has been compensated in the amounts provided by Ohio law for the protection of employees in the event of injury or death.
The controlling question is whether Duffy was, in relation to the General Electric Company, an independent contractor or whether the two corporations stood in the relation of master and servant. The evidence is clear that while the supervising corporation indicated the general area in which the steel beams were to be placed, it did not direct Duffy to place them immediately under the charged wires nor did it exercise any control in the use of an electric crane greater in length than the distance between the charged wires and the bottom of the gondola car, although it did warn Duffy repeatedly, both orally and in writing, that the wires were energized, and notices were posted calling attention to the dangerous situation in the area, nor did they seek otherwise to control the manner and mode of the unloading.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leach v. Newport Yellow Cab, Inc.
...contractor a mere servant where the mode and means of performance are within the control of the contractor. Sullivan v. General Electric Company, 226 F.2d 290, 291 (6th Cir.1955). In the present case, the Plaintiffs and Conrail look solely to the contract between Newport Yellow Cab and Conr......
-
Morris v. Gulf Coast Rail Grp., Inc.
...in accordance with the specifications of the contract does not render a contractor a railroad employee. See Sullivan v. General Electric Company, 226 F.2d 290, 291 (6th Cir.1955). In Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Bond, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a particular worker was......
-
Wooddale, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland
...the question whether the relationship of employer or independent contractor exists, is one of law for the court. Sullivan v. General Elect. Co., 6 Cir., 226 F.2d 290; Hassebroch v. Weaver Construction Co., 246 Iowa 622, 67 N.W.2d 549, 552. See also Anderson v. Elliott, 244 Iowa 670, 673, 57......
-
Moss v. Central of Georgia R. Co.
...employee. 2A C.J.S. Agency § 12 p. 569; see Fisher v. United States, 441 F.2d 1288, 1291 (3rd Cir. 1971); Sullivan v. General Electric Co., 226 F.2d 290, 291 (6th Cir. 1955). While plaintiff was paid by the hour at times other than when he was injured, he was to receive a flat sum for compl......