Vasligato v. Yellow Pine Co.

158 A.D. 551, 143 N.Y.S. 817, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 31, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 158 A.D. 551 (Vasligato v. Yellow Pine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vasligato v. Yellow Pine Co., 158 A.D. 551, 143 N.Y.S. 817, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Putnam, J.:

At a time when defendant had to make large deliveries of lumber, it engaged extra horses and drivers from a public truckman, one James J. McAllister. While driving along Hudson avenue, Brooklyn, a lumber truck, owned and used by defendant, but driven by a driver furnished by McAllister, ran over the plaintiff. This driver received his wages weekly from Mr. McAllister. On the morning of this accident the driver had reported to the McAllister stables, where he took his orders for the day. He was to harness his horses, go with them to defendant’s lumber yard and drive out defendant’s loaded trucks, as defendant directed. At the yard the driver was given the destination of his loads and he proceeded to make deliveries without being accompanied by any representative of defendant. At the end of the month defendant paid Mr. [552]*552McAllister at the rate of seven dollars a day for the horses and driver. Defendant could not select, engage or discharge the driver; if dissatisfied, defendant could only complain to Mr. McAllister, and perhaps demand another driver to be substituted. The defendant had merely told the driver where to drive, without directing his route or otherwise interfering with the driver’s actions.

These undisputed facts showed that the driver remained the servant of his general employer, and had not come under the exclusive control of defendant. As the legal relation of master and servant did not exist between the defendant and this driver, the complaint was properly dismissed. (Kellogg v. Church Charity Foundation, 203 N. Y. 191; Weaver v. Jackson, 153 App. Div. 661.)

I advise that the judgment of dismissal be affirmed, with costs.

Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Nissula v. Southern Idaho Timber Protective Ass'n
245 P.2d 400 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1952)
Grastataro v. Brodie
189 A.D. 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Carr v. Burke
183 A.D. 361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)
Cannon v. . Fargo
118 N.E. 796 (New York Court of Appeals, 1918)
Miller v. North Hudson Contracting Co.
166 A.D. 348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Hanatsek v. Wilson
161 A.D. 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 A.D. 551, 143 N.Y.S. 817, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasligato-v-yellow-pine-co-nyappdiv-1913.