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.