Billing

Each of the several named plaintiffs sued for and recovered judgments, in three separate actions, simultaneously tried, against the defendants, Harris and Southern Pacific Company, in sums aggregating $45,000, for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of a collision between a gasoline motor car operated by the defendant Southern Pacific Company, in which the plaintiffs were riding as passengers, and an auto truck owned by the defendant Harris. We have before us at this time only the three appeals of the defendant Harris, which, by stipulation of the parties to the appeals, are presented in a single record.

The collision in question occurred at the intersection of Long Beach boulevard and the tracks of the Southern Pacific Company in the county of Los Angeles. It is conceded for the purpose of the appeals that the evidence adduced upon the whole case is sufficient to support the implied finding of the jury that the collision in question resulted from the joint negligence of the engineer of the gasoline motor car and the driver of the truck. The auto truck, at the time of the collision, was employed in hauling a quantity of gasoline, which one Geiger, doing…

The case of Pruitt v. Industrial Accident Commission, ante, p. 459 [ 209 Pac. 31 ], does not conflict with the instant eases, as is contended in the petition for rehearing. In the instant cases the relationship of general employer and employee existed between Harris and Pratt prior to the contract of hire of the truck and driver by the special employer, Geiger. Pratt was employed by Harris, his wages were paid by Harris, and he could only be discharged and replaced by Harris, and daily he made reports to Harris as to the amount of work performed. This and other uneontradicted evidence tended to show that Harris exercised exclusive control over Pratt in all respects except as to the loading and unloading of the truck. In the absence of direct evidence or of any evidence in the instant cases from which it might be inferred that Harris at the time and place of the collision and with respect to the manner and method of operating and controlling the auto truck while in transit 'had relinquished to another person his right of control over the driver of the truck, it must be inferred that he retained such control and as a consequence was liable.

On the other hand, in Pruitt v.…