Williams v. National Cash Register Co.
Decision Date | 13 March 1914 |
Citation | 157 Ky. 836,164 S.W. 112 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County, Common Law and Equity Division.
Action by Pearl B. Williams against the National Cash Register Company and Todd Meadows. Judgment for plaintiff against Meadows and in favor of defendant company on a directed verdict, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Robert C. Simmons, of Covington, for appellant.
Stephens L. Blakely and Geo. E. Phillips, both of Covington, C. D Bronson, of Dayton, Ohio, and John H. Klette, of Covington for appellee.
While the appellant, Mrs. Pearl B. Williams, was riding in a buggy on the streets of Covington on June 10, 1911, she was thrown from her buggy and severely injured in a collision with an automobile. The automobile was owned by Bert. Alexander, a sales agent of the National Cash Register Company, in Cincinnati, having as his territory several adjoining counties in Ohio, and Kenton and Campbell counties, in Kentucky. Alexander's office was in Cincinnati. The machine was driven by Todd Meadows, a chauffeur in the employment of Alexander.
Mrs Williams brought this action for damages against Meadows and the National Cash Register Company, and recovered a judgment for $7,000 against Meadows; but, at the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court, holding there was no testimony connecting the National Cash Register Company with the accident, or making it responsible for the injury, directed the jury to return a verdict for the company, which was done. Mrs. Williams appeals, insisting that Meadows was in the service of the National Cash Register Company at the time of the collision; the defendant insisting he was the servant of Alexander, under a separate or independent employment. The principal question, therefore, for decision is this: Did the relation of master and servant exist between Meadows, the chauffeur, and the National Cash Register Company?
The automobile was the property of Alexander, and Meadows was his chauffeur, employed by Alexander, and paid by him. Alexander as before stated, was the sales agent of the appellee, working on a commission basis, by which he received a certain commission for all sales negotiated by him or his employes; he paying all of his expenses in maintaining his office and his agency, under a written contract with the company. Alexander repaired cash registers in the territory of his business; and in doing so, according to the testimony for appellee, he bought repair parts from the company, made charges for repairs independently of his business for the company, collected all the money for repairs, and made no report thereof to the company.
At the time the accident occurred, Meadows and McLaren, also in the employment of Alexander, were delivering a cash register to Shotwell, in Latonia. Meadows says the register had been repaired by Alexander at a cost of $8.50, and that this repair bill was collected by Meadows when he delivered the register to Shotwell on the day of the accident. Shotwell, however, does not agree with Meadows about the repairs, but says the only time the cash register in question was delivered to him was the occasion of its delivery under the original purchase. In this, however, he is probably mistaken, since Shotwell's original order, dated April 15, 1910, about 14 months before the accident, is produced by the company, and Shotwell receipts for payments under that order are produced by him. Shotwell does not remember ever having had any repairs made upon his register; but Meadows is corroborated by McLaren, who was present at the time of the delivery and the payment of the bill, and by Shephard, Alexander's bookkeeper, who proves the credit.
As there is a decided difference between opposing counsel as to the contract relations between Alexander and the company, a consideration of the terms of the contract between them becomes necessary to determine whether the relation of master and servant existed between the National Cash Register Company on the one side, and Alexander and his employes on the other. The case would not be different, in so far as it relates to the liability of the National Cash Register Company, if Alexander himself had been driving his automobile instead of his employé Meadows, since in either case the question is this: Was the register being delivered by Alexander for the National Cash Register Company, or for himself alone? If the company had the right to say not only what should be done by Alexander in the conduct of his business for the company, but how he should do it, the relation of master and servant existed.
The contract is in the form of 41 written propositions directed to Alexander by the National Cash Register Company, and accepted by him, by which the company appointed Alexander as its sales agent for the sale of its cash registers in the territory above indicated. The provisions of the contract which are material to this discussion, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Savings L. Ins. Co. v. Riplinger
...518, 10 S. Ct. 175, 33 L. Ed. 410; Messmer v. Bell & Coggeshall Co., 133 Ky. 19, 117 S. W. 346, 19 Ann. Cas. 1; Williams v. National Cash Register Co., 157 Ky. 836, 164 S.W. 112; Id., 161 Ky. 550, 171 S.W. 162; Foreman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 228 Ky. 300, 14 S.W. (2d) 1079, and other cas......
-
Taylor v. Blackwell Lumber Co.
... ... 16, 126 N.E. 599; 1 Thompson on ... Negligence, sec. 579; Williams v. National Cash Register ... Co., 157 Ky. 836, 164 S.W. 112; Columbia ... ...
-
Gordner v. St. Louis Screw Co.
... ... 996; Railroad v. Robinson, ... 173 S.W. 822; Lewis v. National Cash Register Co., ... 84 N.J.L. 598; Phillips v. Western Union Tel. Co., ... B. N. S. 606; ... Lovington v. Bauchens, 34 Ill.App. 544; Williams ... v. Nat. Cash Reg. Co., 157 Ky. 836; Lewis v. Nat ... Cash Reg. Co., ... ...
-
Stockwell v. Morris
... ... This case was, under somewhat ... similar facts, followed in Williams v. National Cash Reg ... Co., 157 Ky. 836, 164 S.W. 112, and Lewis v ... that it was his duty and not that of the defendant to ... register the automobile and obtain a license to operate it ... The defendant had ... ...