Weese v. Stoddard

• Citation: 1956 NMSC 117,63 N.M. 20,312 P.2d 545
• Decision Date: 10 December 1956
• Docket Number: No. 51,No. 6087,51,6087
• Parties: Frank WEESE and Bertha Weese, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Russell STODDARD, Individually, W. J. Sink, individually, and V. C. Steele, Roscoe C. Vaughn, Roy G. Preston, W. A. Wiseman, F. W. Wiseman, Russell Stoddard, Nyle Weese, J. G. Irwin, Rexford Jones, Clifford Holder, Ed Frieze, Henry Gresham, Otho Wiseman, Bosko Krivokapich, Fred Snyder, Jr., William Morgan, Russell Frazier, Earl Jones, Carl Crist, Robert Cresswell, and Harold Weese, as members of John Duffy Postof The American Legion, an unincorporated association, and for and on behalf of all members of John Duffy Postof The American Legion, an unincorporated association, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico

Page 545

312 P.2d 545

63 N.M. 20

Frank WEESE and Bertha Weese, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Russell STODDARD, Individually, W. J. Sink, individually, and V. C. Steele, Roscoe C. Vaughn, Roy G. Preston, W. A.

Wiseman, F. W. Wiseman, Russell Stoddard, Nyle Weese, J. G.

Irwin, Rexford Jones, Clifford Holder, Ed Frieze, Henry

Gresham, Otho Wiseman, Bosko Krivokapich, Fred Snyder, Jr.,

William Morgan, Russell Frazier, Earl Jones, Carl Crist,

Robert Cresswell, and Harold Weese, as members of John Duffy

Post No. 51 of The American Legion, an unincorporated

association, and for and on behalf of all members of John

Duffy Post No. 51 of The American Legion, an unincorporated

association, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 6087.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 10, 1956.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1957.

Willard F. Kitts, Iden & Johnson, Albuquerque, for appellants.

Robert A. Morrow, Raton, for appellees.

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

Appellees brought a class action for damages against the members of John Duffy Post No. 51 of The American Legion, an unincorporated association, for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of one of its members. The trial court awarded judgment against the members of the Post, jointly and severally, and they appeal.

The facts are not in dispute. The Post had 67 members, 60 of whom resided in New Mexico. In the early part of 1950, a group of resident members decided to sponsor and operate a rodeo on June 17 and 18 of that year. On various occasions, for convenience, the Post and the Women's Auxiliary met at the same time and place. Representatives of the Auxiliary were present on the occasion mentioned when the Post was making plans for the rodeo. The question of providing refreshment was up for discussion. At first the Post thought of selling the refreshment concession but the Auxiliary requested the concession for itself, offering to construct the refreshment stand and operate that phase of the entertainment at its own expense. Thereupon the Post granted the concession to the Auxiliary. The stand was constructed, with the assistance of members of the Post, adjacent to the rodeo grounds. Appellee, Bertha Weese, was a member of the Auxiliary and was assigned by the Auxiliary to work at the refreshment stand both days.

The Post furnished one of its members, Russell Stoddard, to assist the Auxiliary in doing the work that was too heavy for the ladies, such as hauling, loading and unloading soft drinks, ice, etc. He used a truck belonging to W. J. Sink in doing the hauling, but the cause was dismissed as to Sink. On the second day of the rodeo, some of the ladies requested Stoddard to erect a windbreak and sunshade to protect the area about the stand where they worked. The truck was parked near the stand, and to comply with their request, Stoddard, Nyle Weese and Henry Gresham, other members of the Post, erected a shelter by use of a wooden beam 2X6X15 feet extended from the corner of the refreshment stand to an opening in the truck body over which they hung a tarpaulin. Thus erected, the beam was 7 feet and 8 inches above the ground.

About 5:00 P. M. of that day, when the rodeo was about over, the ladies began closing the refreshment stand. Stoddard began placing pop bottles in cases and loading them into the parked truck. He also removed the tarpaulin from the beam. Just then some member of the Auxiliary requested him to move the truck. Appellee, Bertha Weese, who had been sitting in a parked car a short distance from the stand, returned for another soft drink. She walked under the beam as Stoddard moved the truck and it fell, striking her shoulder, causing the alleged injuries.

The trial court found that Stoddard was the agent of the Post at the time and that his negligence in moving the truck was the proximate cause of the injuries inflicted by the falling beam.

The members of an unincorporated association are liable for the torts committed by the association's agent acting within the scope of his employment. But whose agent was Stoddard at the time of the accident? The controlling factor in determining this question is: Whose work is being performed and who controlled and directed the agent in his work? We cannot escape the conclusion that Stoddard was a special servant at the time of the accident, controlled by and acting under the direction of the Auxiliary, a like unincorporated association. He was complying with the directions of the Auxiliary when he moved the truck. He was assigned specifically to do only the heavy work; other tasks were to be performed by the Auxiliary. At no time did he exercise control of the refreshment stand. The stand was the exclusive project of the ladies, and, incidentally, they received all benefits therefrom. Consequently the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable and the finding of the court must be set aside, having no support in the evidence.

The general rule is found at 35 Am.Jur. (Master and Servant) Sec. 541, as follows:

'The fact that a person is the general servant of one employer does not, as matter of law, prevent him from becoming the particular servant of another, who may be held liable for his acts. Indeed, as a general proposition, if one person lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant, for anything done in that employment, is dealt with as the servant of the one...