Opinion ID: 1188188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: to agent or inspector

Text: Carload Perishable Freight must be serviced in accordance with waybill instructions shown below. Position of ventilators is to be recorded under `Arrival' and `Departure' columns, show `O' for Open, `C' for Closed. How does a court determine whose work is being done under circumstances such as these? In the case of Linstead v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 276 U.S. 28, 48 S.Ct. 241, 243, 72 L.Ed. 453, the court says of such a problem  quoting from Farwell v. Boston & W.R.R., 4 Metc., Mass., 49, 38 Am.Dec. 339  that it is a question:   usually answered by ascertaining who has the power to control and direct the servants in the performance of their work. Here we must carefully distinguish between authoritative direction and control, and mere suggestion as to details or the necessary cooperation, where the work furnished is part of a larger undertaking. (Italics added). The use of the words control and direction are not always as clear as, at first blush, they appear to be. The case of Jones v. George F. Getty Oil Co.,, 10 Cir., 92 F.2d 255, gives a rather lengthy discussion of this problem, citing some of the cases cited in the present briefs. There is an implication in that case, in its reference to the opinion rendered in the case of Denton v. Yazoo, & M.V.R. Co., 284 U.S. 305, 52 S.Ct. 141, 143, 76 L.Ed. 310, that control should be considered in the light of whether the instructions (as to servicing the cars in this case) came from the railroad as orders or commands of what shall be done, or merely as information (of what the shipper requires to be done). We have in mind particularly this quotation:    In each of these cases [ Standard Oil Company v. Anderson, supra, 212 U.S. 215, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480, and Driscoll v. Towle, 181 Mass. 416, 63 N.E. 922] the facts plainly demonstrated that the work was that of the general master, and that in doing it, the servant had not passed under the direction and control of the person for whom the immediate work was being done; the latter being looked to not for commands, but for information. The expression must be serviced in accordance with waybill instructions shown below found in the instruction quoted above from the switch list, if considered in the light of those waybill instructions establish a must as to results, not a process of control of performance of the duty. This, in effect, is the passing of information along from shipper to the express company. Using the thought expressed in the quotation from the Linstead case above, this statement does not evidence an intention to exercise the power to control and direct the servants in the performance of their work. In the case of Gaulden v. Southern Pacific Co., D.C., 78 F. Supp. 651, 657 which was upheld on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 174 F.2d 1022, the present express company defendant, and its stockholder, the Southern Pacific Co., were involved in a case in many ways like this one. There an iceman was injured too, but he was engaged in work in the icing yard and plant owned by the express company. He was engaged in unloading ice from the refrigerating car owned by the express company. While he was engaged in moving an empty car from a loading platform, he was struck by a loaded car being drawn up to the loading platform by a cable and winch. In one sense that case is stronger in plaintiff's favor than this, as the court held that the movement of cars was the duty of the railroad, and plaintiff was engaged in moving an empty car into a loading position. The court held, however, that plaintiff's actions were not as a special employee of the railroad company. Upon that point the court had this to say: The contention, that plaintiff's activities at the time of the accident were in connection with a railroad movement, in unsubstantial. It is true at the time one car was being manually pushed away from the loading platform, while another was being driven up by a cable and winch. A railroad movement connotes something more than the mere movement of a car over a rail. Certainly this it not enough to constitute common carriage by rail. This court has considered five elements in determining the question: (1) the selection and employment of the servant; (2) the payment of his wages; (3) the power to discharge the servant; (4) the power to control his actions; and (5) the person whose work is being done by the servant. Murray v. Wasatch Grading Co., 73 Utah 430, 274 P. 940. The first four of these, clearly, under the facts of the present case, point to the express company as the responsible employer. As to the fifth, we believe, in this case, that the express company was the one whose work was being done. Of course, the railroad will ultimately benefit from it; but we do not believe that anyone concerned thought the railroad was performing the services, and merely took on the express company for the purpose of acquiring the use of their employees. It is, in a sense, a specialized service which has been recognized as such for years. The first point we decide adversely to plaintiff. Point II, as taken from appellant's brief is as follows: The arrangement whereby defendant railroad company seeks to have employees of the Express Company and not its own employees perform necessary services on its interstate trains and cars is a contract or device in violation of 45 U.S.C.A. Section 55. This point is rather well answered in the Gaulden case cited above. There the court said this: Section 5 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 55, provides as follows: `Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter, shall to that extent be void.' The creation of the Pacific Fruit Express Company, although intended to further the transportation business of its two railroad stockholders, occurred before the Act was passed. There is therefore no basis for a charge that creation of Pacific Fruit Express Company violated Section 5. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Bond, 240 U.S. 449, 36 S.Ct. 403, 60 L.Ed. 735; Robinson v. Baltimore & O., 237 U.S. 84, 35 S.Ct. 491, 59 L.Ed. 849; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, supra [254 U.S. 175, 41 S.Ct. 93, 63 L.Ed. 205]. Point III, quoted from appellant's brief is as follows: The defendant express company at the time of plaintiff's injuries was a common carrier by railroad in interstate commerce. This point we believe is also answered by the Gaulden case, wherein it was said:    There does not seem to be any doubt at all that the business of renting refrigerator cars to railroads or shippers and providing protective service in the transportation of perishable commodities is not of itself that of a common carrier by railroad. Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commissioner, 237 U.S. 434, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036; United States v. Fruit Growers Express Co., 279 U.S. 363, 49 S.Ct. 374, 73 L.Ed. 739; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205; United States ex rel. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Company v. Interstate Commerce Com., 265 U.S. 292, 44 S.Ct. 558, 68 L.Ed. 1024; Reynolds v. Adison Miller Co., 143 Wash. 271, 255 P. 110. Point IV raised by appellant is as follows: There was sufficient evidence introduced in this case to support a finding that the defendants were negligent and that such negligence contributed in whole or in part to the injuries suffered by plaintiff. This point raises the question of the negligence with which the defendants are charged. The first cause of action, the only cause with which we are concerned, charges: (a) a failure to furnish plaintiff a safe place to work; (b) failure to provide any means of removing the obnoxious carbon monoxide fumes; (c) ordered plaintiff to service and adjust the charcoal burners without help or assistance from any other employee; (d) allowing gas to so accumulate. There was a safe means of working in the manner plaintiff attempted; but he failed to carry it out. A means of cleaning the bunkers of obnoxious gas was available, had plaintiff properly applied it. But there is no question that the rules were disobeyed in sending plaintiff upon this duty without assistance. However, there is no explanation present in the case of how the situation would have been different and the injury not suffered had he been assisted by another employee. The result is that there is a link missing in plaintiff's efforts to connect the negligence mentioned in (c) with the resultant fall and injury. We are constrained to disagree with plaintiff on this point. Judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Costs to respondent. WADE, WOLFE, LATIMER and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.