Lenoir Car Works was a manufacturer owned by Southern Railway Co. An employee of Lenoir, Garret, was injured and claimed injuries from silicosis contracted while working. Garret argued that Lenoir was an instrumentality of Southern and thus Southern should be liable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. However, the court ruled that Lenoir was not an instrumentality of Southern. It found that Lenoir maintained separate offices, bank accounts, books, and legal departments. There was also no evidence that Lenoir operated solely for Southern's benefit or that Southern controlled Lenoir's operations.
Lenoir Car Works was a manufacturer owned by Southern Railway Co. An employee of Lenoir, Garret, was injured and claimed injuries from silicosis contracted while working. Garret argued that Lenoir was an instrumentality of Southern and thus Southern should be liable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. However, the court ruled that Lenoir was not an instrumentality of Southern. It found that Lenoir maintained separate offices, bank accounts, books, and legal departments. There was also no evidence that Lenoir operated solely for Southern's benefit or that Southern controlled Lenoir's operations.
Lenoir Car Works was a manufacturer owned by Southern Railway Co. An employee of Lenoir, Garret, was injured and claimed injuries from silicosis contracted while working. Garret argued that Lenoir was an instrumentality of Southern and thus Southern should be liable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. However, the court ruled that Lenoir was not an instrumentality of Southern. It found that Lenoir maintained separate offices, bank accounts, books, and legal departments. There was also no evidence that Lenoir operated solely for Southern's benefit or that Southern controlled Lenoir's operations.
Lenoir Car Works was a manufacturer owned by Southern Railway Co. An employee of Lenoir, Garret, was injured and claimed injuries from silicosis contracted while working. Garret argued that Lenoir was an instrumentality of Southern and thus Southern should be liable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. However, the court ruled that Lenoir was not an instrumentality of Southern. It found that Lenoir maintained separate offices, bank accounts, books, and legal departments. There was also no evidence that Lenoir operated solely for Southern's benefit or that Southern controlled Lenoir's operations.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Garret v Southern Railway Co. Lenoir was no a “common carrier by railroad.
” It was not performing
FACTS: non-delegable duties of railroad. it was a manufacturer and plaintiff 1. Garret was a wheel moulder by lenoir car works, Tennessee was one of it’s employees, hence, not an agent of Southern since it corporation performed no common carrier operations. 2. Garret claims injuries from silicosis contracted from silica dust permeating foundry. (not determined in this case WON he had silicosis and amount of injury) 3. Respondent acquired the entire capital stock of Lenoir Car Works. Notes. 4. Lenoir is but an instrumentality of Southern Southern: operator of a terminal, performs switching or transportation 5. if it is an instrumentality, Employee is entitled under the federal functions. employee liability act 6. General rule: The dominant stock ownership of a corporation is not CHECK p. 203 of campos for the court opinion on parent and liable for torts unless corporate existence is a sham or adjunct of subsidiary corporations. 11, only 2 are present namely ownership dominant corporation or instrumentality of capital stock by southern and subscription by southern to the 7. Plaintiff’s averment: All directors and officers of Lenoir are capital stock of Lenoir. employees of Southern, Southern owns all the stock of Lenoir except 5 qualifying shares, between 1942-1097 lenoir sold to Southern or its affiliates $30m worth of products while selling $4.5m to outside purchasers, All profits went to Southern, All employee’s accidents, litigation, general accounting are handled by Southern, and Railroad Retirement Board decided that employees of Lenoir were entitled to benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act, thus, Lenoir has the power of eminent domain 8. Defendant’s averment: Lenoir maintains its offices in Lenoir, Tennessee, Never had a chance that a person was both Lenoir and Southern’s director, Separate Bank accounts, Separate Books, Separate legal department, Henry Marius (manager) is paid by lenoir although he holds and votes the proxy of southern at the annual stockholders meeting.
ISSUE/RULING: WON Lenoir was the instrumentality of Souther? NO!
There was no evidence that Lenoir was operating for the sole benefit of Southern. There was no evidence that Lenoir ’s operation was controlled by Southern. Everytime Lenoir and Southern engaged into a business, there was an accounting during the end of each month.
