Solmica of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Braggs
1970 Ala. LEXIS 1039, 285 Ala. 396, 232 So. 2d 638 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To hold an employer liable for an employee's actions under respondeat superior, the plaintiff must establish a master-servant relationship and that the act was within the scope of the servant’s employment, which is determined by the employer's reserved right to control the manner and means of work, and whether the act was in furtherance of the employer's business.
Facts:
- Solmica of the Gulf Coast (Solmica) made contracts with individual homeowners for the application of aluminum siding on their houses.
- John Edward Cornelson worked as an applicator for Solmica, paid $15.00 per square for application plus a mileage allowance for transportation, and he furnished his own pickup truck, hired his own helpers, and supervised them on jobs.
- Solmica instructed Cornelson on application methods, checked jobs, could require redoing work, or dismiss applicators, furnished all necessary materials, allowed charging additional materials to its account, and withheld 4% of his gross pay for 'insurance.'
- On the morning of July 1, 1965, Cornelson and his helpers went to Solmica's office, received a job assignment for Pascagoula, Mississippi, and left around 9:30 A.M.
- Cornelson and his helpers left the Pascagoula job site around 3:30 P.M. to return to Mobile, stopping on the way where Cornelson had a 'sip' of beer.
- Cornelson arrived at his house in Mobile between 4:30 and 5:00 P.M., where his helpers separated from him; he then changed clothes and took his brother to their mother’s house in his pickup truck.
- From 4:30 P.M. to 5:45 P.M., Cornelson consumed four drinks of straight bourbon at his mother's house.
- Cornelson left his mother's house around 5:45 P.M., stopped for gas, and shortly thereafter, while driving on Stone Street in Mobile, he ran over and killed Elaine Loretta Braggs. Cornelson later testified he was going to Solmica’s office to pick up additional materials (corners) needed to finish the Pascagoula job, which had not been available earlier, a common custom for applicators to do after hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Louise Braggs, as Administratrix of the estate of Elaine Loretta Braggs, sued Solmica of the Gulf Coast and John Edward Cornelson in a trial court (court of first instance) for $135,000 in damages for the death of her intestate.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for Louise Braggs and against the defendants in the amount of $30,000.
- Solmica of the Gulf Coast filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled.
- Solmica of the Gulf Coast, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment, assigning as error the refusal to give an affirmative charge in its favor.
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 a question for the jury presented as to whether John Edward Cornelson was an agent or employee acting within the line and scope of his authority for Solmica of the Gulf Coast when he caused a fatal accident while driving to pick up materials for a job?
Opinions:
Majority - Maddox, Justice
Yes, a jury question was presented as to whether John Edward Cornelson was an agent or employee acting within the line and scope of his authority for Solmica of the Gulf Coast when he caused a fatal accident. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude a master-servant relationship existed and that Cornelson was acting within the scope of his employment. The court applied the respondeat superior doctrine, which necessitates establishing both a master-servant relationship and that the act was within the scope of employment. For the master-servant relationship, the critical test is the employer's 'reserved right of control' over the manner in which the business is done, not merely the results. Evidence showed Solmica instructed Cornelson on application methods, checked jobs, could require redoing work, and could pull him off a job. Solmica furnished materials, allowed charging additional materials, and withheld 4% for 'insurance.' Under Alabama's 'scintilla rule,' these facts provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find an employee relationship. Regarding the scope of employment, the test is whether the employee's conduct was in furtherance of the employment. Cornelson’s duties included transporting materials, and Solmica permitted him to pick up materials after hours, which was a regular custom and beneficial to Solmica as the job could not proceed without them. Cornelson’s testimony that he was going to Solmica's office to pick up these materials, even if he had been drinking and had personal deviations, created a jury question on whether this act was an incident to carrying out his assigned duties. Citing Nelson v. Johnson and Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Stanley, the court noted that activity beneficial to both employer and employee, even off-hours or involving personal vehicle use, can fall within the scope of employment.
Analysis:
This case highlights Alabama's 'scintilla rule,' which allows even minimal evidence to send a factual question, such as employer-employee status or scope of employment, to a jury. It reinforces that the employer's retained right of control over how work is done is paramount in establishing an employment relationship, even if the worker appears independent. Furthermore, the decision broadens the definition of 'scope of employment,' demonstrating that actions taken outside regular hours or involving personal deviations can still be considered within scope if they are in furtherance of the employer's business and implicitly or explicitly authorized. This makes it more challenging for employers to avoid respondeat superior liability by strictly classifying workers as independent contractors or by arguing minor deviations from typical work activities.
