Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1884 · Torts

TortsEmployer liabilityIndependent contractorPremises safetyNegligenceindependent contractormaster-servantfellow-servant rule

Facts

The plaintiff entered a written agreement to break down rock and ore in the defendants' mine for a stipulated price per horizontal foot, furnishing his own powder, oil, and hired men, while the company supplied the steam drill, kept the drift clear, and allowed use of the platform and bucket for access. At the 270-foot level, the company had long maintained a substantial platform in daily use at the drift entrance, filling the shaft except for a bucket-hole. On the day of the injury, by direction of the defendants' superintendent, a new ladder-hole was cut near the center of the platform close to the bucket-hole, without railing, light, warning, or notice to the plaintiff. Unaware of the change and while using the platform in the ordinary course of business, the plaintiff fell through the new hole thirty-five feet and was seriously injured.

Issue

Was the plaintiff, under the contract described, merely the defendants' servant so that recovery was barred by the fellow-servant doctrine, or was he a contractor? And regardless of that status, were the defendants liable for injuries caused by a hidden and newly created danger on their premises left unguarded and without warning?

Rule

A worker is a contractor, not a servant, when he undertakes a specific job for an agreed price and furnishes and pays his own assistants and necessary materials, even if the work is part of the employer's regular business and performed under the employer's superintendent's direction. In any event, an employer must use reasonable care to keep premises and access ways free from concealed, unusual dangers not naturally incident to the work, and is liable when its own act or that of a vice-principal creates or permits such a trap without warning or protection. Ordinary care is measured by what ordinarily prudent persons would do under the circumstances, not by business custom.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Butte, Montana, Granite Vein Extraction hired Leo Mercer under a written agreement to remove a specified 80-foot section of ore for $900 per horizontal foot. Leo supplied his own blasting powder, oil, and two helpers whom he hired and paid, while the company supplied a drilling machine and told him each week which tunnel segment should be worked first.

If Leo is injured by the negligence of one of Granite Vein Extraction's regular employees, which classification is strongest under the majority's rule?

Explanation. The majority treated a worker as a contractor, not a servant, where he had a binding agreement to complete a specific job for an agreed price and furnished and paid his own assistants and necessary materials. The fact that the work was part of the defendant's regular business, or that it was performed under a superintendent's direction, did not change that result.