borrowed servant doctrine in Missouri

1970That claimant in proceeding in the haul pursuant to the trip lease agreement with Steel Haulers whereon he suffered the accident and the resultant injuries complained of, was acting on a mission in the continuing service of his employer, Missouri Lumber, in its usual and customary business activities and had not consented to become and did not become the special employee of Steel Haulers.” Stroud v. Zuzich, supra, presented the same question, i. e., whether driver Stroud was the employee of Zuzich at the time of his accident or whether he became the special employee of Byers Transportation Com

1970That claimant in proceeding in the haul pursuant to the trip lease agreement with Steel Haulers whereon he suffered the accident and the resultant injuries complained of, was acting on a mission in the continuing service of his employer, Missouri Lumber, in its usual and customary business activities and had not consented to become and did not become the special employee of Steel Haulers.” Stroud v. Zuzich, supra, presented the same question, i. e., whether driver Stroud was the employee of Zuzich at the time of his accident or whether he became the special employee of Byers Transportation Com

2012Id.

2006We held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for NPI because: (1) there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the borrowed servant defense which required a trial to resolve; and (2) the provisions of the ICOA and PSA were not effective to release NPI from liability because the words “negligence,” “fault” or their equivalents were not used as required by Alack v. Vic Tanny International of Missouri, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. banc 1996).

1988Francis, 4 Ill.App.2d 48, 59 , 123 N.E.2d 121, 127 (1954), the court rejected application of the borrowed servant doctrine: It is part of the hospital’s business to furnish [physicians with] the use of [employees], and the fact that during the period of the operation an [employee] is subject to the direction of a physician does not change the relationship ... the furnishing of the [employee] necessarily involves the circumstances that the [employee] furnished will carry out the directions of the physician in charge. *114 Id. 313 N.E.2d at 259-60 .

1988Francis, 4 Ill.App.2d 48, 59 , 123 N.E.2d 121, 127 (1954), the court rejected application of the borrowed servant doctrine: It is part of the hospital’s business to furnish [physicians with] the use of [employees], and the fact that during the period of the operation an [employee] is subject to the direction of a physician does not change the relationship ... the furnishing of the [employee] necessarily involves the circumstances that the [employee] furnished will carry out the directions of the physician in charge. *114 Id. 313 N.E.2d at 259-60 .

1977Referring to Section 227, Restatement of Agency 2d, the court held, “[Wjhether or not a person ‘rented’ becomes a servant of the one whose immediate purposes he serves depends in general upon the same factors which determine that one acting for another is a servant rather than an independent contractor.” 391 S.W.2d at 320 .

1972Dunn v. General Motors Corp., Mo., 466 S.W.2d 700 .

1970That claimant in proceeding in the haul pursuant to the trip lease agreement with Steel Haulers whereon he suffered the accident and the resultant injuries complained of, was acting on a mission in the continuing service of his employer, Missouri Lumber, in its usual and customary business activities and had not consented to become and did not become the special employee of Steel Haulers.” Stroud v. Zuzich, supra, presented the same question, i. e., whether driver Stroud was the employee of Zuzich at the time of his accident or whether he became the special employee of Byers Transportation Com

1970Under such circumstances, it was held that the commission properly-found that the right to control Jess Patton while driving for Tri-State had been surrendered by the general employer within the borrowed servant doctrine of Ellegood v. Brashear Freight Lines, supra. This statement of Patton v. Patton & Boyd shows several factors which distinguish it from Stroud v. Zuzich, supra, and the general employee-employer relationship between Herbert Brown and Missouri Lumber Transports: The lease from Patton & Boyd was express in providing that the leased equipment was under the exclusive control of th

1970Appellants rely also on Dickhaut v. Bil-yeu Refrigerated Transport Corp., supra, which also may be distinguished from the relation between Mr. Brown and his employer.

1970In their contention that claimant was the special employee of Steel Haulers, appellants rely primarily on Patton v. Patton & Boyd, Mo., 308 S.W.2d 739 .

1956Under a strikingly parallel arrangement involving the use of a vehicle and driver, the Supreme Court, in Wills v. Belger, 357 Mo. 1177 , 212 S.W.2d 736, 738 , held that the borrowed servant doctrine did not apply.

1956Under a strikingly parallel arrangement involving the use of a vehicle and driver, the Supreme Court, in Wills v. Belger, 357 Mo. 1177 , 212 S.W.2d 736, 738 , held that the borrowed servant doctrine did not apply.

1948The applicable rule of law is well stated in O'Brien v. Rindskopf, 334 Mo. 1233 , 70 S.W.2d 1085 , 1088, the opinion quoting from other decisions and texts, as follows: "`While it is true that one may be in the general service of another, and, nevertheless, with respect to particular work, may be the servant of another, who may become liable for his acts, yet to escape liability the original master must surrender full control of the servant in the performance of said work.

1948The applicable rule of law is well stated in O'Brien v. Rindskopf, 334 Mo. 1233 , 70 S.W.2d 1085 , 1088, the opinion quoting from other decisions and texts, as follows: "`While it is true that one may be in the general service of another, and, nevertheless, with respect to particular work, may be the servant of another, who may become liable for his acts, yet to escape liability the original master must surrender full control of the servant in the performance of said work.