Marine v. Service Trucking Co.

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Disappointed and feeling aggrieved by the action of the Circuit Court for Dorchester County, which sustained an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (Commission), denying their claim for compensation, a widow and four minor children have appealed. The sole question presented for decision is whether Floyd K. Marine, the husband and father, was an employee of Service Trucking Company, Inc. (Service), at the time of his death. Service operates a fleet of trucks for the hauling of general cargo over a large area of the country.

Its principal office is located at Federalsburg, Maryland. Marine was the proprietor of a trucking business operated by him in Galestown, Maryland. His operating equipment consisted of three tractors and one trailer, which were operated by Marine and the drivers whom he employed. Since Marine had no I.C.C. certificate of public convenience and necessity, he was unable to use his trucks in interstate commerce.

Apparently, to surmount this difficulty, he leased his equipment to certificated carriers, such as Indiana Refrigeration Line, Inc., Federal ³¹⁸ Trucking Company and Service. Under such an arrangement, Service and Marine, on November 6, 1958, entered into a lease agreement, whereby Service leased from Marine the tractor and trailer in which he was riding at the time of his death. During early January of 1959, Service obtained a contract for hauling a truck load of products from the factory of Swanson & Co., at Salisbury, Maryland, to a point in the State of Florida. Marine was engaged to perform Service’s contract of hauling with Swanson, and, having no helper at the time, he contacted and employed one Jeraloman, who had been employed by him many times before, to make this trip.

The two left Salisbury on January 6, 1959, and started to their destination in the truck described in the lease. When they reached a point in Virginia, the operator of the truck accidentally ran into the rear of a parked vehicle, and both Marine and his helper died as a result thereof. The appellants filed a claim with the Commission for Workmen’s Compensation, which was denied on the ground that Marine, at the time of his death, was not an employee of Service. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court for Dorchester County, where the decision of the Commission was affirmed, and the appeal to this Court followed.

Additional facts and more of the terms of the lease will be stated later in the opinion. The appellants, rightfully, concede that if Marine were an independent contractor at the time of his death, they are not entitled to an award. Code (1957), Article 101, Section 67 (3); Board of Supers Elections v. Balser, 172 Md. 187 , 190 A. 822 ; Sun Cab Co. v. Powell, 196 Md. 572 , 77 A. 2d 783 ; Snider v. Gaultney, 218 Md. 332 , 146 A. 2d 869 . This Court stated in Gaultney, supra, that an independent contractor is, “one who contracts to perform a certain work for another according to his own means and methods, free from the control of his employer in all details connected with the performance of the work except as to its product or result.” And, as the words “employer” and “employee” in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, are the equivalent of, and synonymous ³¹⁹ with, the words “master” and “servant,” the rules for determining the existence of the relation of employer and employee under the Act are the same as the common-law rules for ascertaining the relation of master and servant.

Sun Cab Co. v. Powell, supra; L. & S. Construction Co. v. State Accident Fund, 221 Md. 51 , 155 A. 2d 653 , and cases therein cited. Whether the relationship of the parties is that of master and servant, or employer and independent contractor, depends upon the facts of each particular case, Greer Lines Co. v. Roberts, 216 Md. 69, 80 , 139 A. 2d 235 ; and where the evidence is conflicting upon the subject, or more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence, the question is one for the trier of facts to determine. Greer Lines Co. v. Roberts, supra; L. & S. Construction Co. v. State Accident Fund, supra. In a number of cases, the Court has enumerated several criteria that may be considered in determining whether a master-servant relationship exists.

Sun Cab Co. v. Powell, supra; Charles Freeland & Sons, Inc. v. Couplin, 211 Md. 160, 169 , 126 A. 2d 606 ; Keitz v. National Paving Co., 214 Md. 479, 491 , 134 A. 2d 296 ; L. & S. Construction Co. v. State Accident Fund, supra. None of these indicia, standing alone, is controlling except one. In Keitz, 214 Md. at page 491 , we said: “The decisive test in determining whether the relation of master and servant exists is whether the employer has the right to control and direct the servant in the performance of his work and in the manner in which the work is to be done. It *