Yearwood v. Peabody

• Decision Date: 15 July 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21981.,21981.
• Citation: 164 S.E. 901,45 Ga.App. 451
• Parties: YEARWOOD . v. PEABODY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

45 Ga.App. 451

164 S.E. 901

YEARWOOD .

v.PEABODY.

No. 21981.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

July 15, 1932.

Error from City Court of Macon; C. H. Hall, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. C. H. Yearwood against E. P. Peabody. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Miller & Lowrey, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Brock, Sparks & Russell, of Macon, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

JENKINS, P. J.

1. "The employer generally is not responsible for torts committed by his employee when the latter exercises an independent business, and in it is not subject to the immediate direction and control of the employer." Civil Code (1910), § 4411. The term "independent business, " as used in this section of the Code, must necessarily be taken to mean a business or employment separate and independent from the business of the employer. The fact that such employee might not be generally engaged in the particular business or occupation carried on by him under his special contract with the employer would not prevent the relation between them from being that of employer and independent contractor, if the work undertaken was not under a contract whereby the relationship of master and servant arose.

2. Under the Georgia statute and decisions, the test to be applied in determining whether the relationship of the parties under a contract for the performance of labor is that of employer and servant, or that of employer and independent contractor, lies in whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Lee, 36 Ga. App. 248, 136 S. E. 173; Quinan v. Standard Fuel Supply Co., 25 Ga. App. 47, 102 S. E. 543; Mount v. Southern R. Co., 42 Ga. App. 546, 550, 150 S. E. 701; Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, 42 Ga. App. 648 (2), 157 S. E. 245; Irving v. Home Accident Ins. Co., 36 Ga. App. 551, 137 S. E. 105.

3. Where the owner of an automobile delivers it to another person, toward whom he does not stand in the relationship of master to servant, for the purpose of repair, and surrenders the entire control of the automo-bile to that person, and neither reserves by the contract, nor assumes, the right to control the time, manner, or method in which the work is done, the person undertaking the labor being responsible to the owner only for results, the relation between the parties is not that of master and servant,...