You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Drinkard v. William J Pulte, Inc

Citations: 210 N.W.2d 137; 48 Mich. App. 67; 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 698Docket: Docket 13993

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; June 27, 1973; Michigan; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal concerning a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, Pulte and Lynch, in a lawsuit brought by Drinkard following an injury sustained during a construction project. Drinkard, an employee of Hubbell, Roth, Clark, was injured by Everett Davenport, an employee of Wilder-Saylor Excavating Company, a subcontractor hired for sewer and water line installation. Drinkard initially alleged liability on the part of Pulte and Lynch, claiming Davenport acted as their agent. However, after settling with Wilder-Saylor and releasing them from liability, the court found that this release also extinguished claims against Pulte and Lynch under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court determined that the defendants did not have control over the subcontractors and classified them as independent contractors. Citing legal precedent, the court concluded that a release of liability for either a master or servant precludes further claims against the other, as the liability is vicarious and derivative, not independent. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, with the plaintiff's remaining allegations deemed irrelevant to the ruling.

Legal Issues Addressed

Effect of Release on Joint Tortfeasor Claims

Application: The court emphasized that the release of a servant extinguished the master's potential liability, aligning with established legal precedent, and dismissed the plaintiff's reliance on cases from other jurisdictions.

Reasoning: The ruling indicates that a release of either a master or servant from liability for a tort also releases the other party, aligning with established legal precedent.

Independent Contractor Classification

Application: The court determined that the subcontractors were independent contractors, which negated the defendants' liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Reasoning: The trial court classified the subcontractors as 'independent contractors,' which it did not need to further address because the release of the employee (Everett Davenport) also released the employer (Wilder-Saylor).

Respondeat Superior and Liability Release

Application: The court applied the principle that releasing a servant from liability also releases the master from vicarious liability, thus barring claims against the defendants.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove their control over subcontractors. The plaintiff's appeal centers on whether the pretrial settlement releasing Davenport and the dismissal with prejudice of Wilder-Saylor precludes any claims against the remaining defendants.