Under the loaned servant rule the negligence of the servant is imputed to the special master and not to the general master. Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480; Denton v. Yazoo M. Valley R. Co., 284 U.S. 305, 52 S.Ct. 141, 76 L.Ed. 310; McHugh v. King County, 1942, 14 Wn.2d 441, 128 P.2d 504; B B Building Material Co. v. Winston Bros. Co., 1940, 158 Wn. 130, 290 P. 839. A motion for directed verdict admits the truth of plaintiff's evidence and every inference of fact that can be legitimately proven therefrom.

" The well established corollary principle that the reservation of the right of employment of the loaned workman is not a decisive factor is recognized in B. B. Building Materials Co. v. Winston Co., 158 Wn. 130, 134, 135, 290 P. 839, and Mc-Hugh v. King County, 14 Wn.2d 441, 445, 128 P.2d 504. The control and supervision of the civil service employees by appellants and associated contractors, both in practice and under the contract's provisions, were so complete and thorough-going that it seems quite clear the contractors were responsible for the workmen's faults under the rules above set forth.

Wilcox offers neither authority nor argument for why we should abruptly reframe our analysis to focus on whether the servant was borrowed directly from the general employer or borrowed in multiple steps.SeealsoMcHugh v. King County, 14 Wash.2d 441, 445, 128 P.2d 504 (1942) ("He who controls the actions and directs the work or action of another is responsible for the acts of the one to whom the instruction is given."); Christiansen v. McLellan, 74 Wash. 318, 320, 133 P. 434 (1913) (" 'The test is whether, in the particular service which [the servant] is engaged to perform, he continues liable to the direction and control of his master, or becomes subject to that of the party to whom he is let or hired.' "

Wilcox offers neither authority nor argument for why we should abruptly reframe our analysis to focus on whether the servant was borrowed directly from the general employer or borrowed in multiple steps.SeealsoMcHugh v. King County, 14 Wash.2d 441, 445, 128 P.2d 504 (1942) ("He who controls the actions and directs the work or action of another is responsible for the acts of the one to whom the instruction is given."); Christiansen v. McLellan, 74 Wash. 318, 320, 133 P. 434 (1913) (" 'The test is whether, in the particular service which [the servant] is engaged to perform, he continues liable to the direction and control of his master, or becomes subject to that of the party to whom he is let or hired.' "

The "loaned servant" doctrine has been used in this state to create liability in a principal who attempts to avoid assessment of damages by alleging that the negligent actor, or the injured party, although acting solely under the direction of the principal, is paid and is thus nominally the employee of another entity. Davis v. Early Constr. Co., 63 Wn.2d 252, 386 P.2d 958 (1963) (firm's liability to employee injured by acts of another worker allegedly loaned to the firm); McHugh v. King County, 14 Wn.2d 441, 128 P.2d 504 (1942) (whether operator of damaged equipment remained employee of equipment's owner or had been loaned to equipment's user); Wiest v. Coal Creek R.R., 42 Wn. 176, 84 P. 725 (1906) (whether injured worker had cause against railroad to whom he was loaned by his nominal employer). [2] The significance of "permanent loan" of the sort envisioned by ASI in this case has never been considered in our prior decisions.

In Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wn. 444, 448, 188 P. 517, we state the general rule which we have applied: Wiest v. Coal Creek R. Co., 42 Wn. 176, 84 P. 725; Christiansen v. McLellan, 74 Wn. 318, 133 P. 434; Boe v. Hodgson Graham Co., 103 Wn. 669, 175 P. 310; Olsen v. Veness, 105 Wn. 599, 178 P. 822; Locomotive Exch., Inc. v. Rucker Bros., 106 Wn. 278, 179 P. 859, 184 P. 848; Macale v. Lynch, 110 Wn. 444, 188 P. 517; Pearson v. Arlington Dock Co., 111 Wn. 14, 189 P. 559; Machenheimer v. Department of Labor Industries, 124 Wn. 259, 214 P. 17; Burchett v. Department of Labor Industries, 146 Wn. 85, 261 P. 802, 263 P. 746; B. B. Bldg. Material Co. v. Winston Bros. Co., 158 Wn. 130, 290 P. 839; Walter v. Everett School Dist. No. 24, 195 Wn. 45, 79 P.2d 689; Clarke v. Bohemian Breweries, Inc., 7 Wn.2d 487, 110 P.2d 197; McHugh v. King Cy., 14 Wn.2d 441, 128 P.2d 504. ". . . It is, of course, well settled law that one who is in the general employ and pay of one person may be loaned, or hired, by his employer to another, and when he undertakes to do the work of the other he becomes the servant of such other, to perform the particular transaction.