TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Branham v. International Supply Co.

BRANHAM v. INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CO. Et Al.

Branham v. Int'l Supply Co., 1933 OK 600, 27 P.2d 354
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 14, 1933
Docket
No. 21595
Judges
Riley, Swindall, Osborn, Bayless, Busby, Avelch, McNeill, Cullison, Andrews
Citations
27 P.2d 3541933 OK 600166 Okla. 2731933 Okla. LEXIS 420

Opinion of the Court — Riley

RILEY, C. J.

Margie Branhaim, for benefit of next of kin, sued the corporate defendants and Silas W. Campbell and Pred W. Campbell, individual defendants, for the wrongful death of her husband, G. ©. Bran-ham. The action was dismissed as to Fred W. Campbell. Demurrers to the evidence interposed by the corporate defendants were sustained, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff against the remaining individual defendant, Silas W. Campbell, in the sum of $8,000.

This appeal is based upon contended error of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer of the corporate defendants.

Silas W. Campbell, the individual defendant, was proprietor and operator of a general motor truck business; a part of that business was done under a special agreement with the corporate defendants. The corporate defendants were engaged in wholesale and retail sale of oil field equipment. They jointly owned and occupied premises in the city of Tulsa. Campbell employed truckmen and supervised the operation of his trucks. Campbell was under contract with the corporate defendants to haul freight from the warehouses of the Oklahoma Iron Works to designated points in Oklahoma and Kansas for a consideration based upon the rate charged by common carriers. Campbell furnished his own trucks and superintended their movements and hired the drivers, one of whom was Yirgil Robinson.

On the date of the injury, Campbell placed *274 two of liis trucks near the loading- rack of the supply house of the corporate defendants. The trucks were about four feet apart and headed in opposite directions. The decedent, Branham, employed by Campbell, was standing between the trucks. Campbell gave orders to Robinson to move the truck driven by him to another location for materials. The engine of the truck was cranked while in reverse gear. Branham was fatally injured by being crushed between the trucks.

The corporate defendants owned and operated a hoist by which the materials shipped were moved to the trucks for loading. The arrangements of the loads and the amount thereof were under the direction of Campbell. Neither of the corporate defendants was operating any machinery over or about the empty truck driven by Robinson at the time its movement inflicted the fatal injury.

The facts are undisputed. The relation of the parties was, in the first instance, for the determination of the trial court as a matter of law.

Wás the negligence of Robinson, under the rule of respondeat superior, that of the corporate defendants, or was it that of Campbell, the individual defendant?

The determination of this question is dependent upon whether Campbell occupied a position as independent contractor, or whether he and his employee, Robinson, were employees of the corporate defendants. Gulf. C. & S. Ry. Co. v. Beasley, 67 Okla. 27 , 168 P. 200 ; Producers Lbr. Co. v. Butler, 87 Okla. 172 , 209 P. 738 ; Wagoner v. A. A. Davis Const. Co., 112 Okla. 231 , 240 P. 618 ; Moore & Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 .

The undisputed testimony of all of plaintiff’s witnesses, taken as a whole, was found by the trial court to establish the relationship of contractor and eontractee and not that of employer and employee. A review of evidence upon this point convinces us that the trial court did not err.

No other ground is presented for reversal of the judgment rendered.

Judgment affirmed.

SWINDALL. OSBORN, BAYLESS, BUSBY, and AVELCH, ,TJ.. concur. McNEILL, J., disqualified. CULLISON, V. C. J., and ANDREWS, J., absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11938: 21939: 21940: 21946: 11954: 119362026peak 1938 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Whiteley116 F.2d 871 (10th Cir. 1940)
  2. Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.1954 OK 196, 272 P.2d 371
  3. Marion MacHine, Foundry & Supply Co. v. Duncan1940 OK 136, 101 P.2d 813
  4. Bradley v. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co.1938 OK 582, 84 P.2d 629
  5. Hawk Ice Cream Co. v. Rush1946 OK 236, 180 P.2d 154
  6. Whalen v. Zinn96 P.2d 434 (Idaho 1939)

Most recent

  1. Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.1954 OK 196, 272 P.2d 371
  2. Hawk Ice Cream Co. v. Rush1946 OK 236, 180 P.2d 154
  3. Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Whiteley116 F.2d 871 (10th Cir. 1940)
  4. Marion MacHine, Foundry & Supply Co. v. Duncan1940 OK 136, 101 P.2d 813
  5. Whalen v. Zinn96 P.2d 434 (Idaho 1939)
  6. Blackwell Cheese Co. v. Pedigo1939 OK 479, 96 P.2d 1043

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Producers' Lumber Co. v. Butler, 1922 OK 738, 209 P. 738 43
Moore & Gleason v. Taylor, 1924 OK 180, 223 P. 611 29
Wagoner v. A. A. Davis Constr. Co., 1925 OK 855, 240 P. 618 24
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Beasley, 1917 OK 497, 168 P. 200 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list