Court Opinion

ID: 9633540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:51:25.396363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:42.131795
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
My concurrence in the instant case is based upon the oral testimony which was presented at the trial, and not upon the written agreement. In the written agreement claimant agreed to buy a truck from Bama Pie, Inc., and to execute a note and mortgage therefor; he agreed to buy pies from Bama and use the truck to deliver the pies to his customers; he agreed to receipt for the pies when delivered, and pay for them at the end of the day when he returned from his route either in cash or by receipts signed by Bama approved credit customers of claimant; and Bama agreed to sell pies to claimant at prevailing wholesale cost, less 25%. The agreement recites that the relationship of the parties is that of “buyer and seller”, and that seller has no control over the pies after purchase, nor over the truck. This contract was entered into as of August 10, 1961, and provides no terminal date. I therefore find nothing in the agreement which establishes the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee.
Claimant testified, however, that he was instructed that he would continue to deliver pies in the same manner and method as he was taught while an employee; that he was to remain on the same route previously assigned and used the same route book after the agreement; that he continued performing the same duties as before the agreement; and further testified:
“Q. Now, at the time — from time to time, were you ever subjected to any supervision by any employees or supervisors of Bama Pie?
“A. Well, if I’d miss a stop, or something like that, and they called in, *504then the supervisor would come up to me that evening when I came in and ask me why I didn’t stop. And one particular time, I told him that I ran out of pies. And he said, there are plenty here. Make sure you have enough tomorrow.”
“Q. Did he tell you to make sure to stop at that same place the next day?
"A. Yes, sir.
⅜ ‘ * ⅜ ⅜ Jjc ⅝
“Q. How often would you call on each of those customers?
“A. I was supposed to call on them every day.
“Q. And was that the instructions that you received?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. From whom?
“A. From the supervisor, Frank Durham.
“Q. After you bought your truck, Tom, did the supervisor continue to tell you things to do and places. to go and customers to call upon ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did you at any time attempt to discontinue services to any of the customers on the list that Bama Pie had given you ?
“A. Yes, sir.
⅜ * * ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
“A. Well, I was going to pull out of this particular store there in Okmulgee, and he came up here and talked to the supervisor, and when I come in that evening, he told me this guy had been there, and he wanted me to stop there the next day.
⅜ * * ⅜ * ⅜
“A. I wasn’t, supposed to get on anyone else’s route.
* * * ⅜ * *
“Q. Who told you what time to report? ■
A. Frank Durham, (supervisor) ”
Claimant further testified that he was required to take pies to Safeway but received no additional compensation for this service.
The president of Bama Pie, Inc., testified that “we would make suggestions”, but “never” gave any orders. Frank Durham, sales manager, testified that he never exercised any control over claimant “after he bought his route.”
An award was denied upon the ground that claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee of Bama Pie, Inc.
From the testimony presented in this case I am of the opinion that Bama Pie, Inc., continued exercising actual control over the claimant after the written agreement was entered into, and that the only practical difference between the operations of the parties before and after the agreement was in the method of payment for claimant’s services. As shown in the majority opinion a jurisdictional question is presented and we must make our own independent determination of the relationship between the parties.