G.UB.MK Constructors and Eric M. Leslie v. Darlene Garner, as administratrix of the estate of Wendell Garner, deceased

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 01/08/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080818 G.UB.MK C o n s t r u c t o r s and E r i c M. Leslie v. D a r l e n e G a r n e r , as a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f W e n d e l l Garner, deceased A p p e a l from J a c k s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CV-05-34) WOODALL, Justice. G.UB.MK C o n s t r u c t o r s Eric M. verdict Leslie, i n favor appeal ("GUBMK") from of Wendell a and i t s former judgment Garner, entered an employee, on a employee jury of the T e n n e s s e e V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y ("TVA"), i n G a r n e r ' s a c t i o n a g a i n s t 1080818 them f o r on-the-job inadvertently We r e v e r s e The details largely the nature a TVA-owned v e h i c l e o v e r of the accident immaterial this to this case turns i n which appeal. on w h e t h e r o f TVA a t t h e t i m e Garner's when Leslie Garner's Act,Ala. a n d he i s e n t i t l e d Code Garner What legs. 1 1 975, was i n j u r e d i s material i s Leslie Leslie a n d TVA. I f s o , t h e n he o f t h e Alabama § 25-5-1 to the limited under Facts R e l a t i n g t o t h e Employment ("the immunity the Act. I. Workers' et seq. co-employee provided In was a " s p e c i a l of the accident. co-employee f o r purposes Compensation Act"), received of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between particular, employee" Garner and remand. are was drove injuries Relationship GUBMK i s a j o i n t v e n t u r e c o m p o s e d o f t h r e e was formed i n 1991 a t t h e i n s t a n c e companies. o f TVA i n o r d e r s t a t e d i n " T e n n e s s e e V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y a n d G.UB.MK A g r e e m e n t No. 9 9 M J - 2 3 2 1 8 7 , [ J u n e -- to partner with 28, 1999]" TVA " f o r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e ("the I t -- a s Constructors contract") of modifications W h i l e t h i s a p p e a l was p e n d i n g , G a r n e r d i e d a n d D a r l e n e Garner, as a d m i n i s t r a t r i x f o r t h e e s t a t e o f W e n d e l l Garner, d e c e a s e d , was s u b s t i t u t e d a s t h e a p p e l l e e . See Rule 4 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. F o r ease o f r e f e r e n c e , the appellee i s r e f e r r e d t o as "Garner" i n t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e o p i n i o n . 1 2 1080818 and supplemental plants and maintenance possibly other TVA fossil TVA-controlled e m p l o y and manage a l l c r a f t l a b o r n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e construction, replacement, systems plants and The and other contract "GC-3 supplemental rehabilitation, construction identified and GUBMK's and by TVA sites ... also " p r i n c i p a l work maintenance of Fossil at and within provided, SCOPE OF WORK F A C I L I T I E S TO BE [is the TVA work including removal, components Hydro and/or generating region." in pertinent part: INCLUDING SERVICES P R O V I D E D BY [GUBMK] AND "... [GUBMK] w i l l p e r f o r m a v a r i e t y o f functions, including, without limitation, site engineering, p r o j e c t management, i n s p e c t i o n and t e s t i n g s e r v i c e s , c r a f t t r a i n i n g , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of s u b c o n t r a c t o r s and TVA's other contractors, and some procurementr e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . [GUBMK] may a l s o f u r n i s h s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l to p r o v i d e a wide v a r i e t y of s e r v i c e s to augment TVA's s t a f f . "GC-5 SERVICES, FACILITIES "4. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TO BE PROVIDED BY TVA U n l e s s s p e c i f i e d to the c o n t r a r y i n a specific Project Authorization, TVA w i l l f u r n i s h s m a l l t o o l s and e q u i p m e n t 3 to] completion modification, testing hydro facilities." to modification contract, at According of the at work AND 1080818 and a l l l a r g e c o n s t r u c t i o n equipment, including cranes, loaders, large trucks, cherry pickers, hoists,e t c . , t o [GUBMK]. fl "GC-9 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR "[GUBMK] r e p r e s e n t s t h a t i t i s f u l l y e x p e r i e n c e d a n d properly q u a l i f i e d , r e g i s t e r e d , l i c e n s e d , equipped, o r g a n i z e d , and f i n a n c e d t o p e r f o r m t h e work under [the contract]. [GUBMK] agrees t o a c t as an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r a n d n o t a s t h e a g e n t o f TVA, except i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e f e r r e d t o below, i n c o m p l e t i n g [ t h e c o n t r a c t ] and m a i n t a i n i n g complete control over i t s employees and a l l of i t s s u b c o n t r a c t o r s . ... [GUBMK] s h a l l p e r f o r m i t s w o r k h e r e u n d e r i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h i t s own m e t h o d s s u b j e c t to compliance with [the c o n t r a c t ] . "GC-14 QUALIFICATION SUBCONTRACTORS' OF [GUBMK'S] PERSONNEL AND "[GUBMK] s h a l l e m p l o y o n l y c o m p e t e n t , q u a l i f i e d , a n d trained personnel to perform t h e work. In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e s t o be m u t u a l l y a g r e e d u p o n , [GUBMK] s h a l l r e m o v e f r o m t h e j o b s i t e a n y p e r s o n n e l o f [GUBMK] d e t e r m i n e d t o b e u n f i t f o r p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s o r h e r a s s i g n e d d u t i e s o r t o be acting or working i n v i o l a t i o n of j o b s i t e work rules. fl "GC-15 SUPPORT PERSONNEL AUGMENTATION) (CRAFT/STAFF " D u r i n g t h e l i f e o f [ t h e c o n t r a c t ] TVA may r e q u e s t , and [GUBMK] a g r e e s t o p r o v i d e when s o r e q u e s t e d , q u a l i f i e d support personnel i n order to perform a 4 1080818 b r o a d r a n g e o f s t a f f a u g m e n t a t i o n f u n c t i o n s s u c h as general construction and field construction engineering s e r v i c e s i n accordance with criteria, p r o c e d u r e s , and s c h e d u l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d b y TVA. W i t h r e s p e c t t o c r a f t l a b o r , [GUBMK] a g r e e s t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t c r a f t p e r s o n n e l as r e q u e s t e d b y TVA and a u t h o r i z e d by the Technical Contract R e p r e s e n t a t i v e . [GUBMK] s h a l l i n f o r m a l l a s s i g n e d support personnel of and be responsible for c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e GC-15 and other applicable requirements. TVA will advise [GUBMK]-furnished support personnel of TVA's s p e c i f i c r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , and s a f e t y p r o c e d u r e s t h a t w i l l a p p l y to the p e r s o n n e l ' s s p e c i f i c work a c t i v i t i e s as d e t e r m i n e d b y TVA. " A l l work a c t i v i t i e s of [GUBMK]-furnished support p e r s o n n e l s h a l l be p e r f o r m e d u n d e r t h e direction, s u p e r v i s i o n , a n d c o n t r o l o f TVA, a n d TVA s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e q u e s t s and d i r e c t i o n s i s s u e d b y employees of TVA to [GUBMK's] ... employees providing support services to TVA hereunder. However, [GUBMK's] employees providing support services to TVA hereunder shall continue as [GUBMK's] . . . e m p l o y e e s , . . . a n d s h a l l n o t b e c o m e e m p l o y e e s o f TVA. [GUBMK] . . . , who i s t h e e m p l o y e r , shall be responsible for the payment of the e m p l o y e e s ' s a l a r i e s and wages, p a y r o l l t a x e s , and employee b e n e f i t s . ... "[GUBMK]-furnished support personnel s h a l l provide support services pursuant to the direction, s u p e r v i s i o n , a n d c o n t r o l o f TVA. B e c a u s e [GUBMK's] ... s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l w i l l work under the direct s u p e r v i s i o n a n d c o n t r o l o f TVA, [GUBMK] d o e s n o t warrant the q u a l i t y of the s e r v i c e s performed or the results obtained. TVA s h a l l be s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for the a c t s or o m i s s i o n s of such p e r s o n n e l d u r i n g t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f s u c h p e r s o n n e l t o TVA a n d w i t h i n the scope of t h e i r TVA-assigned duties, provided 5 1080818 that nothing herein shall r i g h t s upon t h i r d p a r t i e s . create or confer any fl "TVA s h a l l h a v e t h e r i g h t t o r e j e c t a n y assigned s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l c o n s i d e r e d b y TVA, a t a n y t i m e , i n its sole d i s c r e t i o n , n o t t o be acceptable or q u a l i f i e d t o p e r f o r m t h e a s s i g n e d work. fl "GC-22 INDEMNITY " S u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f GC-9, [GUBMK] s h a l l b e an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r f o r a l l p u r p o s e s o f t h i s [ c o n t r a c t ] , and a l l p e r s o n s engaged i n c a r r y i n g out a n y o f [GUBMK's] o b l i g a t i o n s h e r e u n d e r s h a l l b e t h e servants o f [GUBMK] ... a n d n o t t h e s e r v a n t s or a g e n t s o f TVA. fl "GC-4 9 LABOR AGREEMENTS "Included h e r e i n a s A t t a c h m e n t 10 i s t h e TVA PMMA [ P r o j e c t Maintenance and M o d i f i c a t i o n s Agreement f o r the Tennessee Valley Authority Including Hourly Rates o f Pay and F r i n g e B e n e f i t s f o r Maintenance and M o d i f i c a t i o n s Work P e r f o r m e d U n d e r C o n t r a c t ] and [ a s ] A t t a c h m e n t 11 i s t h e CPA [ C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o j e c t Agreement (Including Office Construction, Maintenance, and M o d i f i c a t i o n Supplement to the Construction P r o j e c t Agreement) f o r t h e Tennessee V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y I n c l u d i n g H o u r l y Rates o f Pay and Fringe Benefits f o r Construction Work Performed under Contract] (hereinafter collectively 'Labor Agreements'). The L a b o r A g r e e m e n t s , among other things, s e t out requirements covering the rates of pay, hours o f work, and c o n d i t i o n s o f employment f o r employees, as t h e t e r m 'employee' i s defined i n subsection GC-49.1 below, Labor Agreements 6 1080818 Provisions. [GUBMK] s h a l l b e c o m e s i g n a t o r y t o t h e L a b o r A g r e e m e n t s a n d s h a l l a c c e p t a n d be b o u n d b y the p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Labor Agreements f o r execution of a l l work as r e q u i r e d f o r completion of this [contract]. The Labor Agreements contain d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e s p e c i f i c work c o v e r e d . " (Emphasis In for added.) 2002, employment plant"). hired a t TVA's At that b y TVA. GUBMK time, On A p r i l as a "deck augmentation" gave taxes hand and union f o r Trades manual, Creek union Fossil which processes, L e s l i e was h o p i n g t o GUBMK Plant ("the work," p u r p o r t i n g as s u b s t a n c e a b u s e , employment i s , t o be "staff n e c e s s a r y t o a l l o w GUBMK t o w i t h h o l d dues and Labor procedures t o be t o 5 GC-15 o f t h e c o n t r a c t . from h i s paychecks. o f t h e "G.UB.MK consist eventually L e s l i e accepted (laborer)," that f o r TVA, p u r s u a n t L e s l i e a copy Manual Widow's 22, 2002, L e s l i e e x e c u t e d t h e forms payroll by a labor GUBMK h a d p a y r o l l o f f i c e s l o c a t e d on t h e p r e m i s e s o f the p l a n t . by L e s l i e was r e f e r r e d Constructors Employees" o f 26 pages, and requirements to vest GUBMK Orientation ("the m a n u a l " ) . sets "policies, applicable t o G.UB.MK over such safety r e g u l a t i o n s , absenteeism, 7 The forth i n GUBMK c o n t r o l keeping. also matters and time¬ 1080818 Leslie Project was p a i d based Maintenance Construction collectively o n a wage and Project scale Modifications Agreement as " t h e l a b o r set forth Agreement (hereinafter agreements"), i n and t h e referred t o which t o become a s i g n a t o r y . worked u s i n g equipment on TVA p r o p e r t y , to GUBMK was r e q u i r e d b y 5 GC-49 o f t h e c o n t r a c t exclusively the He owned a n d s u p p l i e d b y TVA. F o r a l l t h e w o r k h e p e r f o r m e d , L e s l i e ' s TVA supervisors track sheets Next, kept t o GUBMK, w h o s e GUBMK would of h i s hours employees submit those and p r o v i d e d then calculated calculations the time h i s wages. t o TVA, w o u l d d e p o s i t i n t o GUBMK's b a n k a c c o u n t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e to cover thepaycheck. on TVA p r o v i d e d i n s u r a n c e f o r L e s l i e and a l l compensation b y GUBMK. the night o f March Garner, a regular TVA e m p l o y e e . assigned duties, payments States workers' such s t a f f - a u g m e n t a t i o n p e r s o n n e l On their amount L e s l i e ' s p a y c h e c k s w o u l d t h e n be drawn GUBMK's b a n k a c c o u n t . supplied which f o r lost Department 16, 2003, Garner Leslie was w o r k i n g In the course of performing was i n j u r e d . Garner wages a n d m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s of Labor Office Programs. 8 with o f Workers' received from t h e U n i t e d Compensation 1080818 On F e b r u a r y 7, 2 0 0 5 , complaint as l a s t claim for relief. asserted Garner amended s u e d GUBMK a n d L e s l i e . asserted negligence as an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t ... i n t h a t co-employees 2004, close c a s e was t r i e d pursuant GUBMK that motion and and L e s l i e submitted to the special and awarded Garner JML, w h i c h appeal. the t r i a l The s o l e issue for a that the The t r i a l the case to interrogatory, court the on t h e employment the jury jury issue. found o f TVA on M a r c h 1 6 , $525,000. S u b s e q u e n t l y , GUBMK a n d L e s l i e f i l e d a At the moved on t h e g r o u n d L e s l i e was n o t t h e " s p e c i a l e m p l o y e e 2003," 2008. TVA was L e s l i e ' s " s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r " to a special interrogatory i t s answer Compensation b y TVA. i n December a s a m a t t e r o f l a w ("JML") their were Meanwhile, i n June purposes of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the Act. denied In directly to a jury evidence established that for Workers' a t the time of the accident." of a l l the evidence, judgment Garner's claims [ G a r n e r ] a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t E r i c M. L e s l i e w e r e L e s l i e became e m p l o y e d The as t h e s i n g l e GUBMK a n d L e s l i e a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d " b a r r e d by t h ep r o v i s i o n s o f the Alabama Act His court denied. a renewed m o t i o n f o r They on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r 9 then filed the t r i a l this court 1080818 erred was i n declining to hold, t h e s p e c i a l employee and, therefore, exclusivity that action because employee' and A. asserts person "when a d e f e n d a n t that or the action decedent r e s t s on t h e d e f e n d a n t v. Alabama Power, by t h e was i n a common will notl i e a 'special t o p l e a d and prove i t . " 623 So. 2 d 1 0 5 0 , 1052 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . L e s l i e a n d GUBMK's B u r d e n The barred o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e d e f e n s e i s an a f f i r m a t i v e o n e , the burden Hicks injured was of the accident Discussion we n o t e t h a t f o r damages the action Leslie of the A c t . II. law of law, that o f TVA a t t h e t i m e Garner's provisions At the outset, as a m a t t e r and t h e S t a n d a r d o f Review following p r i n c i p l e s are well settled: "The f i r s t p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r JML i n f a v o r o f a m o v a n t who a s s e r t s a c l a i m o r a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i s t h a t t h e c l a i m o r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e be v a l i d i n l e g a l t h e o r y , i f i t s v a l i d i t y be c h a l l e n g e d . See D r i v e r v . N a t i o n a l S e c . F i r e & C a s . C o . , 658 S o . 2 d 390 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . The s e c o n d p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r JML i n f a v o r o f s u c h a m o v a n t , who n e c e s s a r i l y b e a r s t h e burden of proof, American F u r n i t u r e G a l l e r i e s v. McWane, I n c . , 477 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , M c K e r l e y v . Etowah-DeKalb-Cherokee Mental Health Board, I n c . , 686 S o . 2 d 1194 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , a n d O l i v e r v . H a y e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o r p . , 4 5 6 S o . 2 d 802 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , i s t h a t e a c h c o n t e s t e d e l e m e n t o f t h e claim or a f f i r m a t i v e defense be supported by substantial evidence. See Driver, supra, and McKerley, supra. The t h i r d p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r JML i n 10 1080818 f a v o r o f s u c h a m o v a n t i s t h a t t h e r e c o r d be d e v o i d of substantial evidence rebutting the movant's e v i d e n c e on a n y e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m o r a f f i r m a t i v e defense. See D r i v e r , s u p r a , a n d First Fin. I n s . Co. v. T i l l e r y , 626 So. 2d 1252 (Ala. 1993). S u b s t a n t i a l r e b u t t i n g evidence would c r e a t e an i s s u e o f f a c t t o be t r i e d b y t h e f i n d e r o f f a c t and t h e r e f o r e would preclude JML. See Driver, s u p r a , and F i r s t F i n a n c i a l , s u p r a . JML i n f a v o r o f t h e p a r t y who a s s e r t s the c l a i m or affirmative defense i s not a p p r o p r i a t e u n l e s s a l l t h r e e of these prerequisites coexist. See D r i v e r , s u p r a , a n d F i r s t Financial, supra, McKerley, supra, and Oliver, supra." Ex parte Helms, B. 120, "In 123 873 So. 2d 1139, 1143 Special-Employment (Ala. 2003). Doctrine M a r l o w v. M i d - S o u t h T o o l Co., 535 ( A l a . 1988), t h i s Court s t a t e d : So. "'In what has come t o b e taken as a statement of the t e s t f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r ' s r i g h t t o r e l y on the e x c l u s i v i t y o f t h e workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n remedies, this Court [ i n T e r r y v. Read S t e e l P r o d u c t s , 430 So. 2 d 8 6 2 , 865 ( A l a . 1983),] quoted the f o l l o w i n g t e s t from 1C A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n , § 48 (1980): '"When a g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r l e n d s n employee to a special an employer, the special employer becomes liable for workmen's compensation only i f " ' " ( a ) t h e e m p l o y e e h a s made a c o n t r a c t of h i r e , express or implied, with the special employer; 11 2d 1080818 "'"(b) t h e work b e i n g is essentially that of s p e c i a l employer; and done the "'"(c) the special employer has the right to control the d e t a i l s o f t h e work. "'"When a l l t h r e e o f t h e a b o v e conditions are satisfied i n r e l a t i o n t o both employers, both employers are liable for workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n . " ' "See, a l s o , Means v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Systems, I n c . , 555 So. 2 d 142 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; B e c h t e l v . Crown C e n t . P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , [495 So. 2d 1052 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ] , a n d P e t t a w a y v . M o b i l e P a i n t M a n u f a c t u r i n g C o . , 467 S o . 2 d 228 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ." Pinson v. Alabama 1990). Power Thus, i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r motion GUBMK h a d t o p r o d u c e an employment between the and the night TVA, right create to (2) express that or implied, the work made of basis the evidence rebutting of fact details of Leslie's any o f these e s s e n t i a l properly 1. W o r k a n d C o n t r o l 12 (1) t h a t existed Leslie t h e w o r k o f TVA, a n d (3) t h a t control an i s s u e f o r a JML, L e s l i e and evidence i n d i c a t i n g of the accident was e s s e n t i a l l y Substantial would substantial agreement, e i t h e r Leslie performing action C o . , 557 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 3 7 - 3 8 ( A l a . of was this TVA h a d work. elements resolved by the jury. 1080818 We have have no d i f f i c u l t y i n holding satisfied the prerequisites that of the special-employment substantial evidence i n d i c a t i n g at of the accident and there Simonetto, a representative no contracts individuals (Emphasis from with added.) 3,000 to time. He a l s o entity and He s t a t e d d e p e n d i n g on t h e s i z e t h e w o r k o f TVA, to the contrary. but that solely John [ f o r ] TVA work." ranged at any o f t h e work f o r c e that i t "employ[s] GUBMK's w o r k f o r c e that employees testified was o f GUBMK, t e s t i f i e d t h a t GUBMK h a d work 5,000 There t h a t t h e w o r k L e s l i e was d o i n g evidence any other f o r TVA doctrine. was e s s e n t i a l l y was no s u b s t a n t i a l a n d GUBMK f o r a JML as t o t h e s e two conditions t h e time Leslie particular time, n e e d e d b y TVA a t t h a t TVA p r o v i d e d a l l the materials and e q u i p m e n t f o r GUBMK's e m p l o y e e s , a n d t h a t L e s l i e w a s h i r e d as "staff augmentation" augmentation" that from provisions the beginning f o r TVA pursuant of the contract. of h i s relationship to the "staffLeslie testified with GUBMK, h e never worked anywhere b u t a t t h e p l a n t . It Leslie was undisputed was a s s i s t i n g Specifically, Leslie that Garner on the night i n Garner's had transported 13 of the accident e m p l o y m e n t w i t h TVA. Garner i n a truck owned 1080818 by TVA t o t h e l o c a t i o n of t h ev e h i c l e t o switch to drive away. truck. However, Garner matter at that Leslie put the truck i n reverse and that o f TVA a s a to control a n d t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l substantial the details evidence n o t whether GUBMK work, b u t r a t h e r work." 1209, "retained [ w h e t h e r TVA] l a c k e d Hamburg v . S a n d i a C o r p . , 1212 (2008) general employer control over (emphasis to the t h e employee t h e employee's 7.03 CMT. d ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ) . " So. added). control added). [Leslie's] may ' b o t h benefit[] exercise[] t o some (Third) degree o f Agency § a t 604, 179 P.3d a t 1212 Rhodes v. Alabama 2 d 2 7 , 29 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ("The t h i r d e l e m e n t 14 over This i s s o , because " t h e Restatement 1 4 3 N.M. See a l s o the inquiry 1 4 3 N.M. 6 0 1 , 6 0 4 , 1 7 9 P . 3 d and both work.' contrary. the r i g h t t o c o n t r o l h i s and the s p e c i a l employer from (emphasis some evidence of Leslie's In t h e c o n t e x t o f t h especial-employment d o c t r i n e , is with the The w o r k L e s l i e was was e s s e n t i a l l y L e s l i e a n d GUBMK o f f e r e d TVA h a d t h e r i g h t work, got out and L e s l i e began Leslie t o return he r a n o v e r G a r n e r . time Garner of law. Similarly, that therailroad tracks, then d i r e c t e d when a t t e m p t e d t o b a c k up, performing of a r a i l r o a d switch. Power Co., 599 of the 'special 1080818 employer' doctrine recognizes a n d t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r may the employee special work' has the r i g h t of the employee, The employer has services, The to control f o r whom 81, ( C t . App. 909, 1209 (2008) Larson's Workers' According activities under TVA, TVA directions such special 2007), aff'd, of the degree 142 143 a and N.M. N.M. 72, 601, ( q u o t i n g 3 A r t h u r L a r s o n & L e x K. L a r s o n , Compensation to 5 the GC-15 Law of issued providing (Emphasis added.) reality would a r r i v e direction, [was employees into Sandia Corp., the § 67.06 the (2006)). contract, " [ a l l work o f [ G U B M K ] - f u r n i s h e d s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l [ w e r e t o ] be performed and 918 the 'the of the time and p l a c e r e n d e r e d , and Hamburg v. 179 P . 3 d the d e t a i l s c o n t r o l element i s s a t i s f i e d where t h e person P.3d f o c u s i s on w h e t h e r to control amount o f s e r v i c e s . ' " 162 employer n o t w h i c h o f t h e e m p l o y e r s has "'the r i g h t the both the general have c o n c u r r e n t r i g h t s t o c o n t r o l of both employers. employer right."). that on to] by be supervision, responsible employees support services That p r o v i s i o n the job s i t e . f o r work, i t was of and for TVA to to TVA testified T V A ' s f o r e m a n who of requests and [GUBMK's] ... [thereunder]." of the contract Leslie 15 control translated t h a t when would he "tell[] 1080818 him he where t o go, what t o do, [and] a l l t h a t testified benefits, his that, a f t e r he became "job duties, everything (Emphasis than t h e amount o f h i s wages a n d employed directly foreman, [his] a s when Indeed, b y TVA i n 2 0 0 4 , supervisor, he h a d w o r k e d [and] f o r GUBMK. added.) specifically, TVA, [his] was t h e same" Additionally, right other stuff." TVA c o u l d d i r e c t L e s l i e ' s d i s m i s s a l . thecontract provided t o r e j e c t any assigned a t any time, connection, t h a t "TVA [ w o u l d ] h a v e t h e support personnel considered i n i t s s o l e d i s c r e t i o n , n o t t o be or q u a l i f i e d t o perform t h e assigned Simonetto work." by acceptable 5 GC-15. In that testified: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r Leslie a n d GUBMK:] A n d t h e q u e s t i o n he s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d y o u a b o u t [was] reduction i n force .. . a n d t e r m i n a t i o n f o r cause. My q u e s t i o n f o r you i s w i t h t h e understanding t h a t TVA d i c t a t e d t h e t e r m s o f t h i s [ m a n u a l ] , who t r i g g e r s t h e s e e v e n t s ? "A. [By S i m o n e t t o : ] F o r a s t a f f - a u g m e n t e d employee, r e d u c t i o n s i n f o r c e a r e t r i g g e r e d b y TVA. TVA w i l l n o t i f y us t h a t t h e work assignment o rt h e w o r k i s done a n d t h a t t h e y no l o n g e r n e e d t h e individuals. ... A n d f o r a t e r m i n a t i o n f o r c a u s e , TVA w o u l d b a s i c a l l y t e l l u s w h a t t h a t -¬ why t h e y w a n t t h e i n d i v i d u a l t e r m i n a t e d a n d f o r w h a t r e a s o n b e c a u s e [GUBMK] w o u l d n ' t h a v e a n y i d e a what t h e y w o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d f o r . 16 More 1080818 "Q. Okay. A n d , i s t h a t b e c a u s e [GUBMK] s u p e r v i s e t h a t person's work? "A. That's (Emphasis 1212, correct." added.) Regardless control does n o t over o f w h e t h e r GUBMK h a d r e t a i n e d Leslie, Hamburg, 1 4 3 N.M. some a t 6 0 4 , 179 P.3d a t i t i s c l e a r t h a t TVA h a d , a s a m a t t e r o f l a w , right of condition Alabama control to C o . , 5 9 9 S o . 2 d a t 29 f o r Alabama on and satisfy of the special-employment doctrine. Power judgment based supervision Power (1) t e s t i m o n y right of sufficient the See Rhodes v . (affirming a summary Company a s t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r , that Alabama Power "supervised [general employer's] employees and that t h e employees all the received o f t h e i r w o r k i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m A l a b a m a P o w e r , " a n d (2) a contract stating of third between that Alabama "'[a]ll [the general Power and t h e general work and a c t i v i t i e s employer] a t t h e P r o j e c t employer o f t h e ... p e r s o n n e l s h a l l be coordinated and s c h e d u l e d b y [Alabama Power] a n d s h a l l be p e r f o r m e d u n d e r the direct supervision is immaterial oversight that a n d c o n t r o l o f [Alabama P o w e r ] ' " ) . I t t h e manual or control purported o f i t s employees i n v o l v i n g s a f e t y and conduct. t o vest i n general i n GUBMK matters The m a n u a l m e r e l y p r o v i d e s 17 some 1080818 evidence i n d i c a t i n g that employees. I t does not of control by 2. Special Contract Whether made a whether to contract satisfy provide some c o n t r o l o v e r i t s e v i d e n c e of the necessary lack TVA. there there GUBMK r e t a i n e d the was of was of Hire substantial hire, express evidence or implied, substantial evidence first doctrine, requires only preceding condition of slightly that to the more the Leslie with TVA, contrary and so discussion than "'Although the lent-servant doctrine is a familiar one at common l a w , ... the workmen's compensation lent-employee problem i s d i f f e r e n t i n one significant respect: There can be no compensation l i a b i l i t y i n the absence of a c o n t r a c t of h i r e between the employee and the borrowing employer. For v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y purposes, the s p o t l i g h t was e n t i r e l y on t h e two e m p l o y e r s a n d w h a t t h e y a g r e e d , how they divided c o n t r o l , how they shared payment, and whose work, as between themselves, was being done. No one paid much a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e m p l o y e e o r c a r e d w h e t h e r he had consented to the t r a n s f e r of h i s a l l e g i a n c e , s i n c e , after a l l , his rights were not usually as a p r a c t i c a l matter involved i n the suit. In the c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w , t h e s p o t l i g h t m u s t now be turned upon the employee, f o r the f i r s t q u e s t i o n of a l l i s : D i d he make a c o n t r a c t of h i r e w i t h the special employer? ... 18 as special-employment conditions. "'This must necessarily employee l o s e s c e r t a i n r i g h t s had be so, since the along with those he the 1080818 g a i n s w h e n h e s t r i k e s u p a new e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t i o n . M o s t i m p o r t a n t o f a l l , he l o s e s t h e r i g h t t o s u e t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r a t common l a w f o r n e g l i g e n c e Gaut v. Medrono, added) (quoting Compensation Clearly, express must 630 So. 2 d 3 6 2 , 365 1C A. §§ 4 8 . 1 1 a n d 4 8 . 1 2 while Leslie and, The contrary of Workmen's was e m p l o y e d b y GUBMK t h e r e was n o there was i m p l i e d l y consented to a i f so, whether Law (emphasis (1980)). employment c o n t r a c t between determine whether Leslie Larson, ( A l a . 1993) there so as t o p r e s e n t was Leslie a n d TVA. Thus, s u b s t a n t i a l evidence contract of hire with we that TVA, s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to the a question t o be r e s o l v e d by the jury. This Court particularly One has significant consideration reality, considered a 2d i s whether the general a c t i n g as a " l a b o r b r o k e r " at consideration 1055; Gaut, i s whether 630 factors to be question. employer i s , i n o r a temporary employment Hicks So. the special workers' compensation insurance. 368 of t o the a n a l y s i s of such a agency f o r t h e s p e c i a l employer. So. number v. Alabama 2d at 367. employer Power, 623 Another provided the S e e G a u t , 630 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 3 , ( h o l d i n g t h a t a l l e g e d s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r Holnam, I n c . , w h i c h 19 1080818 did not provide i n s u r a n c e , was Alabama the employee's not e n t i t l e d Power Co., 557 workers' compensation t o a summary j u d g m e n t ) ; P i n s o n v. So. 2d at 1237 (holding that alleged s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r A l a b a m a Power Company, w h i c h d i d p r o v i d e employee's w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n i n s u r a n c e , was summary j u d g m e n t ) . "'whether such to the duration have Still employment.'" and Gaut, Hess O i l V . I . Corp., also 630 766 Always, providing So. in 2 d a t 367 F.2d 117, Peters, 122 689 f o r the a l l e g e d the f i r s t the risks of his (3d C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ) ; So. 2d 781, we 784 see (Ala. intended i n employer. have explained: " T e r r y v . R e a d S t e e l [ P r o d u c t s , 430 So. 2 d 862 ( A l a . 1983),] and t h r e e o f t h e c a s e s f o l l o w i n g i t [ n a m e l y , M e a n s v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l S y s t e m s , I n c . , 555 So. 2 d 142 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; Marlow v. M i d S o u t h T o o l C o . , 535 So. 2 d 120 ( A l a . 1 98 8 ) ; a n d P e t t a w a y v . M o b i l e P a i n t M f g . C o . , 467 So. 2 d 228 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , ] have involved general employers that were unambiguously temporary employment placement agencies. T e r r y and P e t t a w a y were p l a c e d w i t h t h e i r special employers by Manpower, I n c . ; Marlow, by K e l l y S e r v i c e s , I n c . ; and Means, by Long's Temporary Services, Inc. In such c a s e s , the employee applies 20 of ( q u o t i n g V a n t e r p o o l v. special consideration, was r e a s o n a b l y presumed t h e f o c u s i s on w h a t t h e e m p l o y e e services Regarding c o u l d be acquiesced R a s t C o n s t r . , I n c . v. 1996). the borrowing employer the employee evaluated e n t i t l e d to a another important consideration i s employment w i t h that the 1080818 to the general employer f o r the s p e c i f i c purpose of t e m p o r a r y p l a c e m e n t w i t h s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r s and thus n e c e s s a r i l y agrees to a c o n t r a c t of h i r e with the special employer. For example, the Court in Pettaway, supra, stated: 'Approximately two weeks b e f o r e h i s i n j u r y , Manpower i n f o r m e d P e t t a w a y o f an a v a i l a b l e work a s s i g n m e n t a t M o b i l e P a i n t . Manpower asked Pettaway i f he would accept such an assignment, as this was the normal procedure. Pettaway agreed t o do s o . ' 467 So. 2d a t 228 (emphasis added). " I n B e c h t e l v. Crown C e n t r a l P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , 4 95 S o . 2 d 1052 , 1054 ( A l a . 1 98 6 ) , P e p S e r v i c e s , I n c . , had 'agreed to supply Crown w i t h gasoline f i l l i n g station personnel.' The o p i n i o n d o e s n o t d i s c u s s how B e c h t e l s t a r t e d w o r k i n g w i t h P e p o r w i t h Crown, but i t recites the following facts in rejecting Bechtel's argument that she had not c o n s e n t e d t o a c o n t r a c t o f h i r e w i t h Crown: " ' B e c h t e l s u b m i t t e d t o t h e c o n t r o l and supervision o f a Crown employee, Steve T h o r n t o n ; B e c h t e l wore u n i f o r m s s u p p l i e d by Crown, bearing Crown labels; Crown participated i n the h i r i n g process; the s e r v i c e s t a t i o n m a n a g e r (a C r o w n e m p l o y e e ) would s i g n t h e w e e k l y t i m e s h e e t s and had a u t h o r i t y to t r a n s f e r Bechtel to another station or to terminate her. This is c l e a r l y evidence that Bechtel submitted to employment with Crown, as a special employer, and, t h e r e f o r e , e n t e r e d into a c o n t r a c t of h i r e w i t h Crown.' " I d . The C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n the record t h a t B e c h t e l had not consented t o a c o n t r a c t o f h i r e w i t h Crown, and i t a f f i r m e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t f o r C r o w n . " Gaut, 630 So. 2d a t 366. 21 1080818 This broker case case. testimony, According GUBMK's workforce ... i s substantially testimony the "principal that TVA to the t y p i c a l work" was to augment region." TVA p r o v i d e d There was uncontroverted a l l the necessary personnel functions. Leslie assignments f r o m t h e TVA f o r e m e n a n d s u p e r v i s o r s . foremen performing tools for same received h i s daily TVA b e c a m e h i s g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r . track of Leslie's indicative Inc. hours Obviously, personnel work and These were A TVA s u p e r v i s o r the "right to hire relationship. t h e r e was u n r e f u t e d c o m p e n s a t i o n c o v e r a g e f o r GUBMK's was instructions work kept and fire" i s See R a s t Constr., testimony that the 689 So. 2 d a t 7 8 3 . As f o r i n s u r a n c e , workers' staff-augmentation and had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d i r e c t h i s o f an employment v. P e t e r s , and work a n d s u p e r v i s o r s who d i r e c t e d L e s l i e ' s after dismissal. TVA's ... i d e n t i f i e d b y TVA a t ... s i t e s equipment the labor- t o t h e c o n t r a c t and t o t h e u n r e f u t e d " f o r t h e ... w o r k within similar provided and paid for staff-augmentation by TVA. This c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t , b e c a u s e , a s GUBMK a n d Leslie in such argue, " i fthe special a situation, employer d o c t r i n e does n o t a p p l y t h e employee 22 i s effectively suing the 1080818 entity which that is provided contrary workers' his to the compensation workers' reasons statute." for Leslie's activities duration that [he] c o u l d be evaluated and acquiesced 2 d a t 367 in So. According to the u n c o n t r a d i c t e d on behalf risks insurance, provisions of at of the 23. TVA were "'of have his (quoting Vanterpool, testimony, of presumed to reasonably the G a u t , 630 and Reply b r i e f , Moreover, such compensation employment.'" 766 at 122). M a r c h 16, by F.2d 2003, t h e d a t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t made t h e b a s i s o f t h i s a c t i o n , L e s l i e had worked day he the of TVA, "[T]his basis consent Gaut, to 630 This plaintiff he for approximately performed the using i s not another employer hoc plant worked there, personnel TVA. at a t o o l s and case for a very and thus having a contract of So. 2d case at e m p l o y e r " and that assigned him by equipment provided him by lent to an employee's being short time or being little Every duties or hire with no the distinguishable asserted, . months. l e n t on reason to borrowing an ad actually employer." 367. is believed that of 11 among other from things, Gaut, "that [ t h e a l l e g e d s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r ] was "he believed [ h i s general 23 where he the always [not] e m p l o y e r ] was his an 1080818 independent (bracketed maintenance language from Hicks, secured expect to testified and into t o then employ." By c o n t r a s t , that that that employment employment i n this with employment w i t h stepping-stone Specifically, he to TVA. would a t 365 once he he d i d n o t transfer him 623 So. 2 d a t case, t h a t he a c c e p t e d e m p l o y m e n t w i t h GUBMK w i t h direct a "that employer], employer] 2d distinguishable asserted [ h i sgeneral added). So. I t i s likewise s p e c i a l employer's] expectation implied with [the general [the alleged (emphasis added). 630 where t h e p l a i n t i f f employment or intend 1055 be supra, contractor." Leslie t h e hope eventually Indeed, h i s testimony GUBMK was c o m m o n l y u n d e r s t o o d t o direct employment by stated: "Q. [ B y G a r n e r ' s c o u n s e l ] : When y o u s t a r t e d w o r k i n g for [GUBMK] i n 2 0 0 2 a n d o n t h r o u g h 2 0 0 3 a n d e x a c t l y up u n t i l y o u r h i r e d a t e w i t h TVA i n 2 0 0 4 , was i t f a i r t o s a y y o u w e r e h o p i n g t h a t TVA was g o i n g t o h i r e y o u ? "A. [By L e s l i e ] : "Q. And t h a t "A. Yes, "Q. Y o u w o r k w i t h some p e o p l e o v e r a t TVA now, TVA e m p l o y e e s , who k i n d o f w e n t t h r o u g h t h e same process, right? Yes, ripen sir. happened, d i d n ' t i t ? sir. 24 TVA. 1080818 "A. Yes, "Q. A n d , o f c o u r s e , I g u e s s y o u knew some p e o p l e a t [GUBMK] who n e v e r g o t h i r e d b y TVA, r i g h t ? "A. Yes, (Emphasis shall shall n o t become a party that 2 relies "[GUBMK's] hereunder on t h e p r o v i s i o n employees employees i n the contract stating support to providing c o n t i n u e as to the contract [GUBMK's] define their business be certainly However, L e s l i e o f TVA." objectives, determinative Hamburg (quoting v. Sandia contract was n o t as of the issue Corp., 142 N.M. and between T h o m p s o n v . Grumman A e r o s p a c e 82, "'While themselves accomplish may employment.'" 162 Corp., to their the employers of special at indicating provision. between relationships an agreement TVA ... a n d a n d t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e may business services ... e m p l o y e e s , h e e v e r saw i t o r was a w a r e o f t h i s employers not sir." added.) Garner that s i r . P.3d at 919 78 N . Y . 2 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 9 - 6 0 , 5 8 5 N . E . 2 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 8 - 5 9 , 578 N . Y . S . 2 d 1 0 6 , 1 0 9 (1991)). Perhaps i t bears repeating at this point that the q u e s t i o n i s n o t w h e t h e r GUBMK was L e s l i e ' s g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r ; that i s undisputed. T h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r h e was also e m p l o y e d b y TVA a s t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r . See T e r r y v . R e a d S t e e l P r o d s . , 430 S o . 2 d 8 6 2 , 866 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ( i n t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y m e n t c o n t e x t , a n e m p l o y e e may h a v e d u a l employment). 2 25 1080818 This i s e s p e c i a l l y true provided t h a t "TVA of personnel t o TVA duties." (Emphasis such Garner calculate Leslie that and w i t h i n the f o r the acts or assignment the scope of t h e i r added.) of TVA-assigned course, insistence was that GUBMK also relies Leslie's on t h e f a c t t h a t wages Garner TVA's TVA's pay him states: "[GUBMK] was on name name or TVA procedure In into a not the directly. paid Leslie's ... After i n 2 0 0 4 , he b e g a n r e c e i v i n g on them." Garner's More Mr. check. employed i n brief, Pinson, Alabama contract with to supervise redevelopment Mr. paychecks at 9-10. from Pinson. Power Company Ellard ("APCo") Contracting ( ' E l l a r d ' ) , wherein E l l a r d agreed to provide and an d i d not a c t u a l l y H o w e v e r , t h i s p r o c e d u r e d i f f e r e d i n no m e a n i n g f u l r e s p e c t the such Such a p r o v i s i o n i s , o f Garner's was h i r e d b y TVA had during also contractor. specifically, paycheck. personnel with independent c a s e , where t h e c o n t r a c t s h a l l be s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e omissions inconsistent i n this them i n connection project." 557 So. with 2d at had "entered Company, APCo w i t h Inc. workers APCo's Mitchell Dam 1236. "Under the c o n t r a c t , A P C o r e t a i n e d t h e r i g h t t o ... r e q u i r e t h e d i s m i s s a l 26 1080818 of workers control under t h e manner workers." prepared the 557 a So. o f wages special withdrawals circumstances; or methods 2d and maintained amount into certain at So. 2d a t 1236. the theory that After APCo environment. APCo, that holding Court To b e s u r e , is a Pinson there distinction was i n j u r e d , entered a special i sa distinction a safe work employer, and i n this difference. set forth GUBMK h a d no i n p u t , b u t t o w h i c h GC-49 o f t h e c o n t r a c t t o b e c o m e records that the general but i t n o t TVA, agreements, i n i t was r e q u i r e d b y ^ signatory. time 27 GUBMK, i n the labor with case, H o w e v e r , i t d i d s o on t h e which the fact to that a summary j u d g m e n t f o r o f a wage words, made he s u e d A P C o o n to provide basis i n conjunction Ellard was h i r e d p u r s u a n t a c t u a l l y c a l c u l a t e d L e s l i e ' s wages. so which funds judgment. without scale calculated 557 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 3 7 . was P i n s o n ' s affirmed that "APCo t h e r e i n as an e m p l o y e e o f E l l a r d . " court APCo by t h e the necessary from had f a i l e d The t r i a l this account "an i r o n w o r k e r , c o n t r a c t a n d was d e s i g n a t e d 557 records, and d e p o s i t e d bank performed Additionally, time t o meet i t s p a y r o l l . " Thomas P i n s o n , work 1236-37. the payroll ... , Ellard of and t o s u p e r v i s e and kept Moreover, b y TVA. employer i t did In other i n this case 1080818 ministerially paycheck calculated does not m a t e r i a l l y Pettaway v. M o b i l e (holding finding that Paint Mfg. amount of change the employee's the analysis. 3 See C o . , 467 S o . 2 d 228 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) i n d i r e c t payment o f wages does not preclude a of a special-employment r e l a t i o n s h i p ) . III. In the the substantial, final Conclusion analysis, unrebutted Leslie evidence and (1) GUBMK that an presented implied e m p l o y m e n t a g r e e m e n t e x i s t e d b e t w e e n L e s l i e a n d TVA, (2) t h a t the w o r k L e s l i e was p e r f o r m i n g t h e n i g h t of b a s i s that of this a c t i o n was e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t TVA h a d t h e r i g h t work. The of the accident trial to control court erred, m o t i o n f o r a JML f i l e d b y GUBMK a n d L e s l i e . judgment and t h e case of i s reversed, a judgment i n favor o f TVA, a n d (3) the details therefore, made of Leslie's i n denying the Consequently, the i s remanded for the entry o f GUBMK a n d L e s l i e . R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. Cobb, C.J., and Smith, Parker, a n d Shaw, J J . , concur. Indeed, this Court regards such an a r r a n g e m e n t as c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a t y p i c a l l a b o r - b r o k e r a r r a n g e m e n t . See G a u t , 630 S o . 2 d a t 367 ( c h a r a c t e r i z i n g P i n s o n and Rhodes as i n v o l v i n g labor brokers b u t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g labor brokers from "temporary employment placement agencies"). 3 28

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.