Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Southard

147 S.W.2d 939
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 3, 1940
DocketNo. 11042.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 S.W.2d 939 (Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Southard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Southard, 147 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinions

CODY, Justice.

This is a suit by the widow and orphan of Elbert Vaughn Southard to recover compensation on account of his death while engaged in hauling logs for the Kurth Lumber Manufacturing Company. The principal ground of defense urged is that the undisputed evidence conclusively shows that the deceased, who owned the truck he was driving, and maintained its upkeep and supplied the lubricating oil and gas which he used, was, at the time of his injuries, “engaged in what may be termed a ‘special employment’ analogous to that of an independent contractor”, and was not an employee of the Kurth Lumber Manufacturing Company, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., at the time he sustained the injuries which caused his death.

The jury found in answer to the special issues which were submitted:

1. That the deceased died as a result of injuries received by him while unloading logs at the Kurth Lumber Manufacturing Company on October 10, 1938.

2. That the Kurth Lumber Manufacturing Company did retain the right to control the means and method used by deceased in performing the details of the work he was engaged in for it.

3. That no employee of the same class as claimant worked substantially the whole of the year immediately preceding claimant’s death in the same or similar employment.

4. That a fair and just rate of compensation was $15.86 per week.

5. That manifest hardship and injustice would result unless compensation was paid in a lump sum.

Before the court’s charge was submitted to the jury appellant moved for an instructed verdict, and after the verdict was returned, it moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, which motions were overruled. And the court rendered judgment for ap-pellees and against appellant for $2,962.93 —or 360 weeks in lump sum.

It is necessary to set forth the substance ■of the evidence to determine whether or not it conclusively established deceased to be an independent contractor, or whether or not it was sufficient to go to the jury on the point relative to whether the Lumber Company retained the right to control and direct the manner, means, and method used by deceased in performing the details of the work he was engaged in for the Lumber Company.

The Kurth Lumber Manufacturing Company operates a mill at Clarksville. It required logs, of course, in order to operate, and this required the felling of trees, the trimming of them, and hauling the logs thus obtained from the woods where they were obtained to the mill. Naturally the transportation of logs from woods to mill is an essential step in the manufacture of lumber. The Lumber Company had its woods foreman or boss, whose job it was to keep the mill supplied with logs. And logging operations included the buying of timber, cutting and trimming it, laying out roads from the place in the woods where the timber is cut to the highway, and the maintenance of such roads while the logs are being hauled. Under the woods boss was a foreman of the cutting crew, and a foreman of the loading crew, a foreman of the road crew, and a scaler to supervise the unloading of the logs after they have been hauled.

A tract to be cut was laid out in strips, and two truck drivers were assigned to a strip. The logs were too heavy to be loaded except by the use of teams, and to be unloaded except by a crane. The truck drivers had no independence with reference to loading the trucks, and none with reference to unloading. In the nature of things the roads were laid out by the company because they were necessary in order to get the logs out to the highway, and the same reason that made the laying out of such roads necessary made it necessary that the truck drivers use such roads as the Lumber Company laid out and maintained. The woods foreman testified that if the truck drivers knew of any better roads than those laid out by the company, they could use them. And there was but one highway leading from where the logs were obtained to Clarksville, so that the truck drivers necessarily used one country road.

The trucks which were used in hauling the logs to the mill did not belong to the Lumber Company. As indicated above, the deceased owned his own truck and paid its upkeep and furnished his gas and oil. In *941 some instances the trucks used to haul logs to the Lumber Company were not operated by such owners, but were driven by employees of such owners. The Lumber Company paid for such hauling on a quantitative basis — so much per thousand feet hauled.

The deceased had been hauling for the Lumber Company some four years. The records show that during the year preceding deceased’s death he had worked 181 days for the Lumber Company, and that he had not.worked for any one else. In point of fact, however, all the owners of the trucks being used to haul for the Lumber Company could pull them out of such service at any time, and use them as they chose without any penalty except the loss of such truck’s “seniority” in service. That is, when the Company would lay off trucks from hauling, the trucks with the greatest seniority would be the last to be laid off.

The woods foreman gave out this letter to the truck drivers:

(Letter-head)
“J. H. Kurth, Jr., J. L. Spotten,
President Secretary.
“H. A. Maas, Vice President.
“Kurth Lumber Manufacturing Company, Inc.
“Capital $200,000.00.
■“Plant
“Clarksville, Texas. General Office
“Keltys, Texas.
“Capacity 20,000,000 feet per year.
“Clarksville, Texas.
“October 8, 1938.
“To the Truck Drivers:
“I thought it had been made plain to you in the past the necessity of very careful driving on all of our log hauls, but it must have been forgotten from the way some of you have been driving in the past few weeks. The company and most of the log haulers have been working hard for the past five years to make the roads safe for the truck drivers as well as the public. We ■cannot afford to let the few reckless drivers undo in just a few minutes all that we have accomplished in the past five years.
“I realize the disadvantage the • high-speed truck has driving behind a low-speed .truck, but it is absolutely necessary to pick your chances and find a suitable place to pass each other. It has been the practice •of several high-speed trucks to pass while •climbing hills as ordinarily it is easier -to pass a truck of low-speed on a hill than any other place, but you must realize that when two trucks pass one another on a hill that practically all of the road is taken up and that if a car or truck should meet you, a crash could not be avoided.
“I notice also, that some of the drivers will be driving at an average rate of speed but when another truck tries to pass, he will either pick up his speed or try to hold • the road. This must be stopped.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Southard
160 S.W.2d 905 (Texas Supreme Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 S.W.2d 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-indemnity-exchange-v-southard-texapp-1940.