emphasizing "the right of control, and not necessarily the exercise of that right" as the "test of the relationship of master and servant"
How later courts described this case
- emphasizing "the right of control, and not necessarily the exercise of that right" as the "test of the relationship of master and servant"
- adopting this approach, but limiting its application to circumstances in which the underlying facts are undisputed and support only one inference
- it is right of control — not its exercise — that is important
- stating right to control gives rise to vicarious liability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Loring, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
Since defendant is asking only for a new trial and is contending only that the case was for the jury on whether Schmit was, at the time of impact, the servant of plaintiff, I agree that there should be a reversal; but I regard the evidence of a master-servant relationship at the moment of impact as conclusive, not that it should be submitted to a jury. The evidence is all one way and undisputed. There was no conflict as to the controlling facts nor as to the inferences that might be drawn therefrom.
Mr. Justice Christianson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.