Lemmerman v. A. T. Williams Oil Co.
1986 N.C. LEXIS 2743, 318 N.C. 577, 350 S.E.2d 83 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual, including an illegally employed minor, who performs services for another in exchange for wages is considered an employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, irrespective of procedural informalities in the hiring process.
Facts:
- Shane Tucker, an eight-year-old boy, regularly accompanied his mother, Sylvia Tucker, to her job as a cashier at a service station owned by A. T. Williams Oil Company.
- The station manager, Ken Schneiderman, had the authority to hire and fire employees for the station.
- For about a month prior to his injury, Schneiderman paid Shane Tucker approximately one dollar per day to perform various tasks, including stocking cigarettes and drinks, picking up trash, and taking out the garbage.
- Sylvia Tucker had initially told Schneiderman that her son would perform these tasks without pay, but Schneiderman rejected the offer and insisted on paying the child for his work.
- The wages paid to employees hired by Schneiderman, including the payments to Shane, were deducted from the manager's own commission.
- On December 1, 1982, while on the defendant's premises after performing his tasks, Shane Tucker slipped on a sidewalk, fell, and cut his hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Shane Tucker and his mother sued A. T. Williams Oil Company in superior court (trial court) for negligence.
- The defendant answered the complaint, asserting as a defense that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was covered exclusively by the Workers' Compensation Act.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The superior court judge found jurisdictional facts and concluded that Shane Tucker was an employee, dismissing the plaintiffs' action.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with one judge dissenting.
- The plaintiffs then appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an eight-year-old child who performs miscellaneous tasks at a service station in exchange for small, informal payments considered an 'employee' under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby divesting the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction over a common law negligence claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Frye, J.
Yes, the eight-year-old child was an employee under the Workers' Compensation Act. An employee is one who works for another for wages, and the evidence supports the trial court's finding that a contract of employment existed. The manager, who had hiring authority, engaged the child to perform tasks in the course of the defendant's business and paid him for these services. The lack of procedural formalities like a formal application or tax withholding is not dispositive, nor is the fact that the manager paid the child from his own commission. Because the Workers' Compensation Act specifically includes illegally employed minors, the child's status as an employee makes the Act the exclusive remedy for his injuries, stripping the superior court of jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Martin, J.
No, the child was not an employee of the defendant. First, public policy should prevent the defendant from using its own illegal act of employing a child as a shield against a negligence claim. Second, the defendant failed to prove an essential element of employment: the child's right to demand payment from the corporate defendant, as all payments were made personally by the manager from his own pocket. Finally, even if an employment contract existed, it was a contract with a minor and is voidable; by filing a common law action, the plaintiff disaffirmed the contract, rendering it void from the beginning and preventing the defendant from relying on it as a defense.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the definition of 'employee' for workers' compensation purposes is a functional one, based on the actual relationship of work-for-pay rather than formal hiring procedures. It establishes that an employer cannot evade the workers' compensation system by engaging in informal or even illegal employment practices, such as hiring a minor. The decision solidifies the principle that the Workers' Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries even for illegally employed minors, channeling such claims away from the potentially higher damages of tort law.
