## Facts

- A trucking operator (Steinhauser) supplied Adams Express Company with a motor van and chauffeur for an hourly rate.
- Adams Express loaded and unloaded shipments, sealed the van at departure, and unsealed it at destination.
- During transit, the chauffeur operated the van without interference or supervision from Adams Express.
- While performing this work, the chauffeur negligently struck and killed the plaintiff’s decedent.
- The plaintiff sued Adams Express’s president, seeking to impose vicarious liability on Adams Express under a borrowed-servant/special-employment theory.

## Issues

1. Whether Adams Express became the chauffeur’s special employer so that it was vicariously liable for the chauffeur’s negligent driving during the delivery.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held Adams Express was not vicariously liable because the chauffeur remained in the service of the general employer, Steinhauser.
- Any instructions by Adams Express about where and when to go did not amount to a transfer of control over the manner of driving sufficient to show a “change of masters.”

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability under the borrowed-servant/special-employee doctrine depends on whether there has been a practical transfer of the right to control the servant’s physical conduct in the performance of the work.
- Control over objectives (e.g., destination and schedule) may coexist with the general employer’s retained control over the manner of performance; such divided command does not, by itself, create a special-employment relationship.
- When the general employer supplies both vehicle and driver and retains the incidents of possession and responsibility for safe operation, the general employer ordinarily remains the master for torts committed in operating the vehicle.

## Conclusion

Because Steinhauser supplied the van and chauffeur and retained control over the chauffeur’s operation of the vehicle between departure and destination, there was no sufficient transfer of control to make Adams Express a special employer; Adams Express therefore bore no vicarious liability for the chauffeur’s negligence.


Charles v. Barrett, 233 N.Y. 127, 135 N.E. 199 (N.Y. 1922)