Court Opinion

ID: 9830824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:31:54.957905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.300450
License: Public Domain

*330On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants most earnestly contend that we are in error in holding that Tidwell was acting within the scope of his employment on returning to the Guitar farms after he had brought Billaba to Big Spring. Their contention is that Tidwell’s employment ended at Big Spring, on his return with Billaba, and that on his return trip from Big Spring to the Guitar farm he was not acting for his employers in the sense that his employers would be responsible for Tidwell’s negligence on his return trip, if he was negligent, in causing the death of Wheeler. We will further consider only that feature of the motion.
Appellants insist that our holding is not in harmony with Cunningham v. Railway, 51 Tex. 510, 32 Am. Rep. 632, Cunningham & Ellis v. Moore, 55 Tex. 373, 40 Am. Rep. 812, and Trachtenberg v. Castillo (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 657.
In Cunningham v. Railway, Cunningham sued the International Railroad Company for personal injuries received while a passenger on the railroad. The defense of the railroad company was that the section of the road upon which the injury occurred was then in the exclusive possession and control of independent contractors and was then being operated for their benefit, and not by the servants of the International Railroad Company, and that the road was not then open for transportation of passengers, and that Cunningham as a passenger on such construction train then being operated by the independent contractor was not a passenger of defendant. The question discussed by the court was on the demurrer to that answer; that is, the liability of the railroad company for the act of the' independent construction contractors. The court held there was a marked distinction between the liability of the master for the acts of an ordinary servant in the usual scope of his duties as such, and that of an employee for the acts of an indepepdent contractor, and pointed out the reason for the difference in liability. •
In Cunningham & Ellis v. Mrs. Kate A. Moore, appellants were the lessees of the penitentiary and as such had custody and control of the convicts. Spencer O. Moore was a convict, and it was alleged that he was in charge of the lessees of the penitentiary, and that, while occupying a bunk erected by appellants, lessees, the bunk gave way and fell, from which he received injuries from which he died. The su\t was for damages against appellants as lessees. The court, after quoting certain articles of the statute and rules pertaining to the control and management of the penitentiary, among them that “no lease shall be made by which the control of the prisoners, except as to a reasonable amount of labor, shall pass from the state or its officers to the lessees,” etc., said, the testimony shows that, under the statute quoted, J. T. Echols, not one of the lessees, was appointed by the commissioners sergeant in charge of the convict camp to which convict Moore belonged, and that under his supervision and by direction of the commissioners the bunks in question were constructed, and that the convicts when turned in at night were under the exclusive control of Sergeant Echols, and that the lessees had no right to order the convicts off the bunk, by whose weight it was broken. We see no application of the facts in that case to the facts of the instant case.
The Traehtenberg-Oastillo Case is in point and was decided by this court. The writ of error was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The questions of fact are lengthy. We may state them briefly. The motortruck at the time of the accident belonged to appellants, and on the day and at the time of the accident was being driven by Tom Allen. Tom Allen was not in the regular employment of appellants, but was using the truck at times for his own use, and at times for the use of appellants, when called on for service by appellants. Tom Allen was permitted by appellants to keep the truck in his possession at all times, and to use the truck in going to and returning from his work, whether working for others or for appellants. On the day of the accident, Tom Allen had been working for appellants at their call, and in doing so used the truck, and at the end of that day he had finished his work for appellants and had not been called for further service for appellants. On the day of the accident and prior thereto, appellants had paid Tom Allen for his service and he had been discharged from their service until he should be again called for further truck service. While Tom Allen was returning the truck to the place where he kept it, the accident occurred. This court concluded from the undisputed evidence that Tom Allen was not in the employ of appellants in driving the truck to his home from the place where he had finished his service to appellants and had there been paid off and discharged. In deciding the case, we referred to Cunningham v. Ry. and Cunningham v. Moore, supra, not as being analogous in their facts, but as stating the test of responsibility of appellants under the facts of that case, Tom Allen, at the time of the accident, not being in the employ or under the control and direction of appellants after his discharge. In that case the court held that under the facts the relationship of employer and employee did not exist at the time of the accident.
In Berryman on Eaw of Automobiles, § 613, p. 688, in discussing the meaning of the phrase “in the course, or scope, of his employment” when used relative to the acts of a servant, it is said, “The test is whether *331tlie act dene was in the prosecution of the business in which the servant was employed to assist.”
In other words, was Tidwell, at the time of .the accident, engaged in serving appellants, or was he, in returning to the Guitar farm, after delivering Billaba at Big Spring, in the exercise solely of his own pleasure. We think his trip in returning to his place of employment, after delivering Billaba, was as much in the service of appellants as in going to Big Spring. We think it immaterial under the facts here that the automobile, driven by Tidwell at the time of the accident, belonged to Tidwell, if he was using it in the performance of a duty he owed his employers. The ownership of the automobile is simply an incident in the performance of his service; the thing done by the servant in the performance of a duty to his master is the ultimate act, and not the instrument with which he performs the duty that makes the master liable.
.  It might be contended that in returning from Big Spring appellants contemplated that Tidwell would observe the rule of the road and not negligently run his automobile on the. wrong side of the road, and, toy doing so, injure a third person, and for that reason appellants would not be liable. But such is not the law. We need only refer to Railway Co. v. Anderson, 82 Tex. 516, 17 S. W. 1039, 27 Am. St. Rep. 902; Railway Co. v. Cooper, 88 Tex. 607, 32 S. W. 517; Burnett v. Oechsner, 92 Tex. 588, 50 S. W. 562, 71 Am. St. Rep. 880, where it is held, in effect, that the master is held liable for the manner in which the servant performs the duty he is engaged to perform, if wrongful, and to the injury of another, although the master may have expressly forbidden the ■particular act.
We have discussed appellants’ liability since, under the record, the facts are undisputed, and appellants’ liability becomes one of law.
The motion is overruled.
Appellants request additional findings of fact. That motion is also overruled.