Yellow Cab Co. v. Wills

• Decision Date: 14 October 1947
• Docket Number: 32455.
• Parties: YELLOW CAB CO. et al. v. WILLS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

185 P.2d 689

199 Okla. 272, 1947 OK 305

YELLOW CAB CO. et al. v. WILLS et al.

No. 32455.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

October 14, 1947

Original proceeding by Yellow Cab Company and/or Y & Y Operating Company to review an award of the State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma to Hubert Wills for total temporary disability and partial permanent disability.

Award affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In determining whether an agent is an employee or an independent contractor, the controlling or decisive test is whether the principal has the right to control the physical details of the work to be done by the agent, or whether the latter represents the former only as to the result to be accomplished.

2. Record examined, and held, that the findings of the State Industrial Commission that the claimant was an employee of his principal; that his injuries were received in the course of his employment, and were not suffered by reason of his being intoxicated, or because he attempted to charge an excessive fare, are sufficiently sustained by the evidence.

Goodson & White, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

C. W Schwoerke, of Oklahoma City, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original petition filed by Yellow Cab Company and/or Y & Y Operating Company, to review an award made by the State Industrial Commission to Hubert Wills for total temporary disability and partial permanent disability.

Undisputed facts are that Wills was the owner of his own car, which he operated as a taxicab under a contract between the Cab Company on the one hand, and the Taxi Cab Drivers' Union as the agent or representative of the drivers, on the other hand; that on December 30, 1944, at 11:30 p. m. Wills was injured in a fight with an intoxicated passenger while operating his cab under such contract. The Company does not question the extent of his disability or the amount of the award.

The first contention made by the Company is that Wills was not an employee, but was an independent contractor. This being a jurisdictional question the finding of the Industrial Commission that he was an employee is not conclusive on this court. Williams v. Branum, 192 Okl. 129, 134 P.2d 352.

Examination of the operating agreement between the parties, which agreement is set forth in full in the record, discloses that claimant as the owner of his own car, while operating it as one of the Company's fleet of cabs, was required to choose the shift on which he would work and to remain on that shift for at least 90 days; that he must begin work and quit work at certain hours; that he could not buy his gasoline from any one but the Company; that he could not replace his car without permission of the Company; that he was required to telephone the Company dispatcher every two hours, and take calls as directed by such dispatcher, except that he was not required to take calls where no proper address was given that he was required to leave his cab in the Company garage at night; that he was entitled to a leave of absence once a year, but if he desired to take that leave at a time when at least 25 percent of the Company's drivers were already on leave the Company could refuse to grant it, and that the Company could discharge or suspend him for cause.

The Company relies on Getman-MacDonell-Summers Drug Co. v. Acosta, 162 Okl. 77, 19 P.2d 149; Williams v. Branum, supra; Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Greenlee, 150 Okl. 69, 300 P. 684; World Publishing Co. v. Smith, 195 Okl. 691, 161 P.2d 861, and similar cases. These cases announce the rule that where the claimant does his work by his own methods, and without any control or supervision by the employer, to whom he is responsible only for the result, he is an independent contractor and not an employee. The right of the employer to control or direct the work is the decisive test. Atlas Life Ins. Co. of Tulsa v. Foraker, 196 Okl. 389, 165 P.2d 323; Modern Motors v. Elkins, 189 Okl. 134, 113 P.2d 969.

In the cases relied upon by petitioner the right of the employer to control the work, if he had such right, extended only to matters such as the place at which trucks were to be loaded or unloaded, or to some similar minor detail, leaving the employee free to do the work in any manner he chose. In the instant case the right of the claimant to do the work in his own way was in the respects above specified, and in other respects,...