Court Opinion

ID: 9827630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:43:06.627647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.960299
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee the Texas Company asserts in its motion for a rehearing that we erred in overruling its first counter proposition, which reads:
“The uncontroverted evidence shows that at the time of the accident J. A. Frederick was commission agent of The Texas Company. His appointment as such agent was in writing and, among other things, contains the following:
“ ‘You (J. A. Frederick) will accept full responsibility for and indemnify the Company against all acts and omissions of your agents, employees and servants.’
“J. A. Frederick employed one Mack Dean to drive the truck. The Texas Company had nothing to do with Dean’s employment. It did not even suggest or recommend Mr. Dean to Mr. FVederiek. Frederick paid Dean’s wages. The truck belonged to Frederick personally and Frederick employed, directed and controlled the movements of Dean. Frederick alone had the authority, right and power to discharge or hire Dean. At the time of the accident the truck was being driven by Dean and Frederick was not in the truck or near the scene of accident. Under such circumstances, as a matter of law, Dean was not-the agent or employee of the Texas Company, and it could not be held for his acts, whether negligent or otherwise. Under such circumstances, the court was required, as a matter of law, to direct a verdict for the Texas Company.”
 We understand the well-established rule to be that the master is liable for the acts of one whom his servant employs under authority given him by the master to assist in *351tire performance of tlie master’s work, and that such authority to employ assistants may be either express or implied. 39 O. J. p. 1271, and authorities cited.
We are of the opinion that if the contract between Frederick and appellant fa,ils to give express authorization, it, the nature of the work to be performed, and the circumstances of this case, are sufficient to show an implied one.
The Woodward-Wanger Co. v. Nelson Case being authority for the holding that Frederick was the servant of appellant, and he having the implied authority to employ Mack Dean to assist him in the performance of appellant’s work, appellant would become liable for Dean’s acts.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.