Servant lent by master to another for particular employment, although remaining general servant of master, must be dealt with as servant of one to whom he is lent, as regards anything done in the latter's employment. Smith v. Hall, 1966 OK 103, ยถ 11, 418 P.2d 665, 669 and syllabus 3 (citing Wylie-Stewart Mach. Co. v. Thomas, 1943 OK 83, 137 P.2d 556 (syllabus 2)). In applying the "loaned servant" doctrine,
Oklahoma law holds that "if the general employer has not resigned full control of the servant for the time during which the work is being performed, then the servant does not become the servant of the person for whom the work is performed merely because such person points out the work to the servant or gives him directions as to details of and manner of doing the work." Smith v. Hall, 418 P.2d 665, 669 (Okl.). In determining which master is liable, "neither payment of wages nor power to hire and discharge is controlling."
In such regard FIE asserts, in effect, although the people that handled the Smith claim were general employees of FIE said employees were loaned to MCIC such that their acts or omissions could only be imputed to MCIC, not FIE. In Smith v. Hall, 1966 OK 103, 418 P.2d 665, 666 (Fourth Syllabus by the Court), it was stated: The controlling factor in determining whether a regular employee of one master has become the special or loaned servant of another is: Has the general employer released for the time required to perform some particular work, all authority to control or direct the manner and method of the work to be done and surrendered such direction and control to the special master?
City could discharge the drivers, transfer them, and required them to perform maintenance checks. As stated in Smith v. Hall, 418 P.2d 665 (Okla. 1966) (quoting Hodges v. Holding, 204 Okla. 327, 229 P.2d 555 (1951) (Syllabus)): The controlling factor in determining whether a regular employee of one master has become the special or loaned servant of another is: Has the general employer released . . . all authority to control or direct the manner and method of work to be done and surrendered such direction and control to the special employer?
Clark v. First Baptist Church, 570 P.2d 327. (Okla. 1977), the test for determining whether the respondent was a loaned servant tests upon the amount of control and direction exercised by his general employer and the amount of control and direction exercised by his special employer a determination which was not made by the Workers' Compensation Court inasmuch as the record contains no testimony relative to the issue of how much control was exercised over Mr. Millsap by either employer. As stated in Smith v. Hall, 418 P.2d 665, (Okla. 1966) (quoting Hodges v. Holding, 204 Okla. 327, 229 P.2d 555 (1951) (Syllabus)): The controlling factor in determining whether a regular employee of one master has become the special or loaned servant of another is: Has the general employer released, for the time required to perform some particular work, all authority to control or direct the manner and method of the work to be done and surrendered such direction and control to the special employer?
Thus the facts in Ishmael, supra, are clearly distinguishable from the factual loaned servant situation here involved. In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding that decedent was the loaned servant of petitioner at the time of his injury on September 30, 1964, and was petitioner's responsibility under the Workmen's Compensation Law. See Smith v. Hall, Okla., 418 P.2d 665; and Wylie-Stewart Machinery Co. v. Thomas, 192 Okla. 505, 137 P.2d 556. Petitioner's next contention concerns the asserted error of the trial court in admitting the testimony of the claimant's medical witness on the theory that such testimony was elicited in response to a hypothetical question assertedly not based on the facts in evidence.
The answer to the question of whether the plaintiff's evidence showed that Crouch was the loaned servant of Kerr-McGee is determinative of this appeal. This case is in effect a companion case to No. 40694, Smith v. Hall, Okla., 418 P.2d 665, in which an opinion was promulgated on this date. The plaintiff in that case and the plaintiff in this case were both employees of Kerr-McGee and were both injured in the same accident when the substructure fell over while being raised by the bulldozer being operated by Crouch.
Hodges v. Holding, 204 Okla. 327, 229 P.2d 555 (1951). Ratliff relies upon the case of Smith v. Hall, 418 P.2d 665 (Okla. 1966), in which it was established that the loaned servant doctrine precludes liability to a general employer or contractor. However, this case was decided in 1966, under statutory law since superseded by 85 O.S.Supp. 1984 ยง 12[ 85-12].