Pitchfork Land and Cattle Co., 346 S.W.2d at 604. The case therein cited, Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693 (1936), had facts nearly identical to those in the instant case. In Dave Lehr, Inc., the plaintiff was injured by a truck driven by one Valderrano, and the question was whether Valderrano at the time of the accident was an employee of Dave Lehr, Inc., so that the latter was legally liable for the injury under respondeat superior.

We have been cited to a number of cases involving the employment of drivers and trucks upon a quantative basis, that is, at so much per unit or per load. In Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693, the plaintiff sued Dave Lehr, Inc., because of injuries sustained by reason of being struck by a truck driven by one Valderrano, on the theory that Valderrano was the servant of Dave Lehr, Inc. It was held that Valderrano was an independent contractor. Valderrano 'owned his own truck and was engaged in the distinct occupation of a 'truck driver,' * * *. The truck drivers were paid by the load at the rate of 50 cents for the first mile and 5 cents for every quarter mile thereafter. He (Valderrano) was requested to be at defendant's place of business about 7 o'clock a. m., if he wanted to do any hauling, and was given materials to haul as orders were received or when defendant needed his services as hauler.

' In Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693, the facts were very similar to those in Southard. The finding of the jury was revised and the truck owner and driver held to be an independent contractor as a matter of law and this notwithstanding that the driver was instructed to use the most practical and direct route, to observe traffic laws, to drive slowly in passing schools and churches, and was paid on a mileage basis.

A truck driver operating his own truck and performing a service of hauling for another at a stipulated rate per load and who has absolute control of his truck and its operation is an independent contractor engaged in a "special employment," for whose negligence a general contractor would not be liable. Dave Lehr, Inc., v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693, and Southern Surety Co. v. Shoemaker (Com. App.), 24 S.W.2d 7, followed. 2. — Independent Contractor.

He was injured after he had delivered a load of caliche and was returning to the crusher to get another load. The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in Dave Lehr, Inc., v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693, which the Commission of Appeals (opinion adopted) held that the evidence was insufficient to show the relationship of employee and employer. That case is well considered, and we should be inclined to follow it were it not for the decision of the Eastland Court in the Hightower case in which a writ of error was refused n. r. e. The principal difference in the facts of this case as above outlined and those of the Hightower case is that in the Hightower case the truck driver was required to be on the job at seven o'clock in the morning and remain until five o'clock in the afternoon with one hour out for lunch, whereas there are no such requirements in this case.

The requirement that the drivers obey traffic regulations is, of course, not evidence of control. Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693. But the very nature of the employment left no independence to a truck driver.

We are of the opinion that a truck driver employed by a trucking company is subject to its control while driving its truck in the transportation of goods for one of its customers. Tilling v. Indemnity Co. of North America, Tex.Civ.App. 283 S.W. 565, writ denied; Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480; Driscoll v. Towle, 181 Mass. 416, 63 N.E. 922; Texas Company v. Brice, 6 Cir., 26 F.2d 164; Craige v. Austin Powder Co., 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 664; Williams v. Gulf Refining Co., Tex.Civ.App. 229 S.W. 959; Traders General Ins. Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App. 95 S.W.2d 189; Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693; Smith Bros. v. O'Bryan, 127 Tex. 439, 94 S.W.2d 145. We do not mean to hold that the proposition above set forth is universal in its character and that there may not be exceptions.

Judgment for plaintiff there was reversed and rendered, and as shown, writ of error was refused. This case was cited by the Supreme Court with approval in Lehr v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693. Appellant insists that there was evidence sufficient to show that The Enterprise Company did assume and exercise control over him with reference to performance of the contract, even though the written contract did not so provide, and hence he was an employee of The Enterprise Company.

Many other decisions cited by appellant are to the same effect, including Security Union Ins. Co. v. McLeod (Tex.Com.App.) 36 S.W.2d 449; Carter Publications v. Davis (Tex.Civ.App.) 68 S.W.2d 640, writ of error refused; Southern Surety Co. v. Shoemake (Tex.Com.App.) 24 S.W.2d 7; Manning v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n. (Tex.Civ.App.) 67 S.W.2d 389; Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown (Tex.Com.App.) 91 S.W.2d 693. The case last cited was a suit against Dave Lehr, Inc., for personal injuries sustained by Jimmy Brown as a result of being struck by a truck driven by one Mariano Valderrano while hauling sand for the defendant, who was a dealer in sand, gravel, and other commodities.

The right of the defendant to supervise the work so far as to see whether it was done according to contract does not throw the responsibility if any, of the contractor, upon the employer. Missouri, K. O.R. Co. v. Ferguson, 21 Okla. 266, 96 P. 755; Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Co. v. Bennett, 36 Okla. 358, 128 P. 705, 20 A.L.R. 678; Branham v. International Supply Co., 166 Okla. 273, 27 P.2d 354; Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Willis, 172 Okla. 148, 45 P.2d 138; Ellis Lewis v. Warner, 180 Ark. 53, 20 S.W.2d 320; Hobbs-Western Co. v. Carmical, 192 Ark. 59, 91 S.W.2d 605; Dave Lehr, Inc., v. Brown, 127 Tex. 236, 91 S.W.2d 693; Tierney v. Correia, 120 Conn. 140, 180 A. 282; Chase v. American Press Brick Co., Mo.App., 31 S.W.2d 246; Coul v. Peck Dry Goods Co., 326 Mo. 870, 32 S.W.2d 758; Fox v. Pallotta, 274 Mass. 110, 174 N.E. 190; Long v. Eastern Paving Co., 295 Pa. 163, 145 A. 71; McDonald v. Hall-Neely Lumber Co., 165 Miss. 143, 147 So. 315; Berry v. Irwin, 220 Ky. 708, 295 S.W. 1020; Albert v. Hudson, 49 Ga. App. 636, 176 S.E. 659; Burns v. Eno, 213 Iowa 881, 240 N.W. 209; Antonelly v. Adam, 175 Minn. 438, 221 N.W. 716; Kruse v. Weigand, 204 Wis. 195, 235 N.W. 426; Potts v. Pardee, 220 N.Y. 431, 116 N.E. 78, 8 A.L.R. 785; Seeley v. Osborne, 220 N.Y. 416, 116 N.E. 97; Gall v. Detroit Journal Co., 191 Mich. 405, 158 N.W. 36, 19 A.L.R. 1164. Cf. 29 A.L.R. 470. In the instant case the "contractor," in a written report made to the Highway Commission, sworn to, stated that the "truck driver" was its employee.