Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.
76 Me. 100 (1884)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who is paid by the job, hires their own assistants, and furnishes their own materials is an independent contractor, not a servant. An employer owes a non-delegable duty to both servants and independent contractors to keep its premises free from hidden dangers, and is liable for injuries caused by the creation of such a hazard by its superintendent acting as a vice-principal.
Facts:
- Mayhew entered into a written contract with a mining company to break down rock and ore in a mine drift for an agreed price per horizontal foot.
- Under the contract, Mayhew was responsible for furnishing his own powder and oil, and for hiring and paying his own assistants.
- The company agreed to furnish a steam drill and keep the drift clear of broken rock as Mayhew's team worked.
- The contract provided that Mayhew and his men could use a substantial platform located at the entrance to the drift to access their work area.
- The company's superintendent directed an employee to cut a large, new ladder-hole in the center of this platform.
- The new hole was left without any railing, barrier, or warning light.
- Mayhew, who had not been notified of the platform's alteration, went upon it in the ordinary course of his business.
- Unaware of the new hole, Mayhew fell through it a distance of thirty-five feet and sustained serious bodily injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Mayhew (plaintiff) sued the mining company (defendants) in a trial court for damages resulting from his injuries.
- At trial, the defendants requested jury instructions classifying Mayhew as a servant, which would bar his recovery under the fellow-servant rule.
- The presiding trial judge refused the defendants' requested instructions.
- The judge instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, if they found the contract existed as the plaintiff claimed, then the plaintiff was a contractor and not a servant.
- The defendants excepted to the judge's instruction and the refusal of their requested instructions, bringing the case before the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mining company escape liability for injuries caused by a negligently created, undisclosed hazard on its premises to a worker who is paid by the job and hires his own assistants, by classifying the worker as a servant barred from recovery under the fellow-servant rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrows, J.
No. A company is liable for injuries caused by a hidden danger it negligently creates on its premises, regardless of whether the injured party is a servant or an independent contractor. The court first determined that Mayhew was an independent contractor, not a servant. This conclusion was based on the terms of his contract: he was hired for a specific job, paid by the foot rather than by time, supplied his own materials, and hired and paid his own assistants. The fact that his work was 'under the direction of the superintendent' did not convert him into a servant, as this constituted general oversight, not the direct control characteristic of a master-servant relationship. Therefore, the fellow-servant rule, which would bar a servant from recovering for the negligence of a co-worker, does not apply. Furthermore, the court held that even if Mayhew had been a servant, the company would still be liable. An employer has a fundamental, non-delegable duty to keep its premises and access ways free from unknown dangers not ordinarily incident to the work. The superintendent, in ordering the creation of an unguarded hole in a platform used daily by workers, acted as a 'vice-principal'— a stand-in for the employer. This act was direct negligence attributable to the company itself, exposing Mayhew to a sudden and unusual danger that was not a risk he had assumed as part of his work. The court rejected the defense that conformance with industry custom could excuse such carelessness, stating that custom does not define ordinary care.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its clear delineation between an independent contractor and a servant, focusing on factors of control, payment method, and provision of labor and materials. It curtails the application of the harsh fellow-servant rule, which often prevented worker recoveries in the 19th century. More importantly, the case establishes that an employer's duty to provide a safe premises free from hidden 'traps' is a foundational obligation owed to anyone lawfully present, including independent contractors. This prevents employers from escaping liability for their direct negligence or that of their managerial agents (vice-principals) in creating dangerous conditions.
Unlock the full brief for Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.