Document: 362 U.S. 396 80 S.Ct. 789 4 L.Ed.2d 820 Raymond P. WARD, Petitioner,v.ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. No. 485. Argued March 31, 1960. Decided April 18, Mr. Neal Rutledge, Miami, Fla., for petitioner. Sam T. Dell, Jr., Gainesville, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 In this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51—60, U.S.C.A. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, by a divided court, affirmed judgment in favor respondent railroad entered on jury verdict District Northern Florida. 265 F.2d 75. We granted certiorari, 361 861, 126, 101, to consider issues presented light our decisions Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific Co., 356 326, 78 758, 2 799, and Baker Texas & 359 227, 79 664, 3 756. The latter is an intervening decision. employed petitioner laborer section gang with regular work-week from Monday through Friday. was injured Saturday, ordinarily gang's day off, when gang, supervised their foreman, using work tools supplied railroad, adn following standard methods doing work, were replacing ties siding track which ran off railroad's main line tracks plant M. Turpentine Company. That company had agreement calling make periodic inspections repairs disclosed be necessary such made at expense Company 'to satisfaction (railroad's) Chief Engineer.' When inspection revealed need question, engaged petitioner's foreman recruit his crew do direction. offered overtime rates pay but there sharp conflict evidence whether he told that they would not working someone else. paid wages funds him contends proofs require holding matter law Company, maintenance siding, 'agent' within meaning § 51, we construed term supra. find no merit contention. Indeed, think question Act. This situation, Sinkler, independent contractor perform operational activities required carry out franchise. privately owned established service it alone. maintaining it, see how can said 'engaged furthering respondent.' supra, page 331, 763. Even use local farmers harvest time load respondent's cars watermelons, fact heavily relied upon petitioner, was, according uncontradicted testimony, instance because President 'leased track—I guess what you call it—anyhow, let those watermelons always repaired every year before watermelon time.' However, agree alternative contention trial judge erred refusing instruct requested petitioner,1 giving instructions did,2 factors considered determining 'employee' during performance given effect limited inquiry aware some third party. But neither communication its concept status nor acquiescence therein, if shown, determinative issue. Cf. Cimorelli New York Central 6 Cir., 148 575, 578. parties' characterization one factor among others, Restatement, Agency 2d, 220(2)(i), issue determination basis all relevant factors. 5 Reversed. Justice FRANKFURTER dismiss writ certiorari improvidently granted. As Court's opinion demonstrates, case solely presents appropriateness court refusal unique circumstances particular situation. falls outside considerations which, Rule 19 Court, 28 U.S.C.A., govern granting petition certiorari. See Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 521, 524, 77 457, 459, 515 (dissenting). 7 HARLAN, whom WHITTAKER joins, dissenting. 8 Since I that, except submitted jury, record tending establish any usual criteria showing employment relationship between connection dissent. Comment a. following: 'One decided or plaintiff, Ward, defendant injured. must determined case. primary power direct, control, supervise plaintiff Other are: who selected work; furnished performed; amount scale wages; fire work. 'If I. H. Keen, control injured, then should 'The money used Ward came originally person owner spur arrangement, does remove employer-employee relieve liability injuries suffered course result negligence. accident here involved occurred partly Co. contracted maintain portion direct consequence, whole part, negligence.' pertinent court's charge follows: 'That Railroad liable unless defendant's clear started morning Railroad, private extra money. put just about simply, didn't I, failed disclosure him, ordered go track, liable. don't say plainer. Do have word could plainer? 'Mr. Rutledge: Your Honor, Railroad. Court: Yes sir, believe suggested person. thought spell much wanted, want you. If so advised went own volition joined others money, employee liable.'

Category: 7