Case Name: Duncan, Appellee, v. Evans, d. b. a. Evans Truck Lines, Appellant; Healy, Admr., Appellee, v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1938-11-30
Citations: 134 Ohio St. 486
Docket Number: Nos. 26492 and 26642
Parties: Duncan, Appellee, v. Evans, d. b. a. Evans Truck Lines, Appellant. Healy, Admr., Appellee, v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., Appellant.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman and Williams, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 134
Pages: 486–489

Head Matter:
Duncan, Appellee, v. Evans, d. b. a. Evans Truck Lines, Appellant. Healy, Admr., Appellee, v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., Appellant.
(Nos. 26492 and 26642
Decided November 30, 1938.)
Mr. George S. Cheney, for Earle C. Duncan, appellee.
Mr. William A. Finn and Mr. S. W. Bowman, for Charles G. Evans, appellant.
Messrs. Harrison & Marshman, for C. Walter Healy, administrator, appellee.
Messrs. McConnell, Blackmore & Cory, for Universal Carloading & Distributing Company, appellant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
In each, case the defendant claims that at the time of the collision the trucking equipment was being operated by an independent contractor to whom had been delegated the duty of transporting the freight. Therefore the single question now requiring the consideration of this court is whether a common carrier by motor truck may relieve itself of tort liability by delegating its duties to an independent contractor.
The defendants rely upon the decision of this court in the case of Leonard v. Kreider, 128 Ohio St., 267, 190 N. E., 634, in'which it was held that "no rule of law as to independent contractors is abrogated by Section 614-99, (General Code, relating to motor transportation companies." However, subsequently to the collision in the Kreider case the Legislature amended many existing statutes and added Sections 614-103 to 614-128, G-eneral Code, inclusive. The powers of the Public Utilities Commission have been extended to include the supervision and regulation of "private motor carriers" and "motor carrier transportation agents." Before operating, the former must obtain a permit from the commission, and the latter must secure a license therefrom. Both must furnish bonds for the protection of the public, as do motor transportation companies. Apparently the Legislature intended to protect the public against loss from negligence on the part of anyone using the highway in the business of transportation by motor truck. Therefore the trial courts were correct in charging the juries that these defendants could not escape liability by delegating their duti.es to independent contractors.
In the Duncan case the defendant complains that the trial court charged the jury that a violation of a rule of the Public Utilities Commission would constitute negligence per se. However, an examination of the file dis closes that this question was not urged by the defendant in his brief in the Court of Appeals.
It is the opinion of this court that the judgments' in these cases must be affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman and Williams, JJ., concur.