Case Name: HINES O. WADFORD v. GREGORY CHANDLER COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1938-05-04
Citations: 213 N.C. 802
Docket Number: 
Parties: HINES O. WADFORD v. GREGORY CHANDLER COMPANY.
Judges: Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 213
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
HINES O. WADFORD v. GREGORY CHANDLER COMPANY.
(Filed 4 May, 1938.)
Master and Servant § 21a- — Evidence held insufficient to support doctrine of respondeat superior.
Defendant company rented a tractor and driver for work on an E. R. A. project, the truck and driver being under the direction and control of the E. R. A. superintendent. Plaintiff, an employee of the Emergency Relief Administration, instituted this action to recover for injuries inflicted by said truck and driver. Held: Judgment of nonsuit was properly entered on authority of Liverman v. Oline, 212 N. C., 43.
Sea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Appeal by plaintiff from Hamilton, Special Judge, at January Term, 1938, of WaKe.
Civil action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant.
It is alleged in tbe complaint that the plaintiff was employed by the “North Carolina Employment Relief Administration” (Vinson v. O’Berry, 209 N. C., 287, 183 S. E., 423) as truck foreman in charge of the Pullen Park Lake Project; that the defendant corporation rented to said “administration” a tractor and driver; and that on 13 June, 1935, plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the driver of defendant’s truck.
It is in evidence that the “E. R. A. supervisor had full authority to direct the operation of the Gregory Chandler equipment, tell them what to do, when to start to work, how to do it, and where to go. . . . Mr. Matthews, the E. R. A. supervisor, directed the work; gave orders to the foremen. Mr. Gregory wasn’t there” when plaintiff was hurt.
From judgment of nonsuit, entered at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.
Douglass & Douglass, J. M. Broughton, and Fm. U. Yarborough, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.
Thos. W. Ruffin for defendant, appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Affirmed on authority of Shapiro v. Winston-Salem, 212 N. C., 751, and Liverman v. Cline, 212 N. C., 43, 192 S. E., 849.
Affirmed.
Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.